We are now in another age of extinction (click to enlarge)

From an Article Translated by Johanna Thompson, German DW.com, June 21, 2022

Talks are currently underway in Kenya on a new international treaty to tackle dramatic species loss. What exactly is at stake? Here’s what you need to know.

Of the estimated 8 million animal, fungi and plant species on our planet, only a fraction have been scientifically documented, according to the international biodiversity council IPBES. Yet according to scientists, the world may lose nearly 1 million species by 2030, with one species already becoming extinct every 10 minutes. This is catastrophic, because a world that lacks diversity is a dangerous place for all species, including humans.

Later this year, at the second phase of the 15th UN Biodiversity Conference in Montreal, Canada almost 200 countries hope to agree on a new international framework for the protection of biodiversity. The agreement text is being prepared this week in Nairobi, Kenya.

Will the global community succeed in halting the extinction crisis? Here’s what you need to know. Two-thirds of all crops rely on natural pollinators such as insects!

What is biodiversity — and what does it mean to lose it?

A recent report from the Leibniz Research Network for Biodiversity stressed how the great variety of species on our planet’s is essential to just about every aspect of human life. “Whether it is the air we breathe, clean drinking water, food or clothing, fuel, building materials or medications — our life, our health, our nutrition and well-being all depend on the great diversity of resources that nature provides us with,” it stated.

More than two-thirds of all crops worldwide rely upon natural pollinators such as insects. Without them, our food supply is likely to become less secure. Yet a third of all insect species worldwide are already facing extinction.

Losing biodiversity could also spell disaster for the medical sector, as many pharmaceuticals — including close to 70% of cancer treatments — are derived from nature.

“The knowledge of 3.5 billion years of natural evolution is stored in biological diversity,” said Klement Tockner, director of Senckenberg Society for Nature Research, a group based in Frankfurt, Germany. “The progressive decline of our ecological capital poses the greatest threat to all of humanity — because once it’s lost, it’s lost forever.”

Reasons for insect loss, why are so many species going extinct?

The answer is human beings. As Earth Overshoot Day illustrates, every year we consume more of our planet’s resources than can be replenished.

Industrial agriculture, deforestation, overfishing, pollution, the spread of invasive species and soil sealing to make way for infrastructure are all contributing to an extinction rate that’s now 1,000 times higher than it would be without humans around.

Is losing a few species really such a big deal?

Throughout Earth’s history, species have lived, thrived and ultimately died out. But never before has so much biodiversity disappeared in such a short space of time. And certainly not due to another species. The use of chemicals in agriculture is one of the causes of species extinction.

According to the German Federal Agency for Civic Education, between 1970 and 2014, the global population of vertebrates declined by 60%, while in South and Central America, that figure is almost 90%. The number of species living in freshwater environments decreased by 83% during the same period.

Johannes Vogel, director of the Berlin Museum of Natural History, said losses within a single genus can have repercussions through the entire ecosystem — including on humans.

“Frogs are currently dying out worldwide because of a fungus spreading due to climate change,” he said. “Frogs eat a lot of mosquito larvae for example, so there will be more mosquitoes in the future — and mosquitoes cause more deaths globally than any other organism.” In the absence of mosquito-eating frogs, mosquitoes are spreading, and with them diseases.

How humans threaten entire ecosystems has become very significant.

Ecosystems are the interaction of different species that depend on one another for survival and their environment. Healthy ecosystems can withstand a certain amount of damage to an individual part and recover. “But the more we reduce the number of species, the more susceptible a system becomes to disturbance,” explained Andrea Perino of the German Center for Integrative Biodiversity Research at the University of Halle-Jena-Leipzig.

The Amazon rainforest, for example, has been reduced so drastically to make way for agriculture and mining that what’s left is also less able to regenerate, according to a recent study. It’s a dangerous feedback loop that could ultimately lead to this entire ecosystem being lost.

Why is conserving biodiversity so difficult?

As early as 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro adopted the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Under the convention, signatory countries committed to promoting sustainable economies that operate within our planet’s ecological limits. Further conferences and agreements followed. But so far, hardly any of the aims set out three decades ago have been achieved.

The 1.5 Celsius target is both a clear political target and a catchphrase. Perino said the problem is all individual nations had to set their own conservation targets, but many of these have amounted to nothing more than declarations of intent. Particularly in industrialized nations, very few effective measures have been implemented.

Tools to assess progress toward CBD targets have also been lacking. “It is often not at all clear whether protective measures are achieving anything at all,” Perino said. “We urgently need comprehensive monitoring of any changes.”

Why do we talk about the climate more than nature?

“While we can agree to work toward the 1.5 degrees Celsius target on the climate crisis — the fight against the crisis of nature is much more complex,” said Nicola Uhde, biodiversity policy expert at German environmental NGO BUND. “It cannot easily be reduced to a buzzword or standard.”

“Awareness of the value of nature often only emerges with its loss,” she added. Unlike floods, droughts or melting glaciers, dying frogs rarely make the headlines. Yet the climate and biodiversity crises are intertwined.

Rising temperatures and changing climatic conditions are driving some species to extinction. And as forests are cleared and wetlands drained, not only do the species they support vanish, essential carbon sinks are also lost, which in turn increases global warming. This is why both crises need to be tackled together, said Tockner: “Renaturation, such as the rewetting of peatlands, not only helps biodiversity, but also the climate.”

Renaturation shows the climate and biodiversity crises can be tackled together! But, what are the sticking points at COP15?

In the preliminary negotiations for the UN Biodiversity Conference coming up in Canada, signatories — now around 200 states — have said they intend to place 30% of global land and sea under protection by 2030.

Perino said this sounds good, but it is unclear what is meant by protection. “After all, there are both strong and weak categories of protection. And nature often finds its way back into balance not through protection, but through renaturation,” said Perino.

It’s also unclear how this 30% of the surface of the Earth is to be spread between countries. BUND is demanding that each country should apply the rule domestically. “This is important so that all existing ecosystems are covered in the process; that is, not just tundras or the Antarctic, but also tropical rainforests, Central Europe’s red beech forests, the mangroves or coral reefs,” said Uhde.

Financing protection measures is another sticking point in the negotiations. In the wealthiest countries, very few primary natural habitats have survived industrialization, while many economically weaker countries still have far more biodiversity. To better protect it, poorer nations are calling for rich countries to increase financial aid for conservation from $160 billion (€152 billion) to $700 billion (€667 billion) by 2030.

Washington Monument (555 feet high)

George Washington Quotes For Presidents Day

This Holiday Was Originally In Honor Of Washington’s Birthday

Nearly two and a half centuries ago, George Washington became the first President of the United States. To help commemorate the man behind the chopping of the cherry tree, I’ve collected 13 of the best George Washington quotes for Presidents Day.

These quotes cover a lot of territory. From the topics of happiness and labor to freedom of speech and discipline, it seems that George Washington had quite a few things to say. This man’s words are simple yet striking, and it’s apparent from reading over these quotes that he was way ahead of his time in so many ways.

While Presidents Day is meant to commemorate all of the United States’ Presidents, it specifically falls in February because of George Washington’s birthday, so it only seems appropriate to give the guy a bit more attention than the rest this Feb. 20.

Be sure to set aside some time today to reflect on America’s history and the many men who first helped to lead this country. If you’re really feeling inspired, share a quote or two with your friends and family via social media. George Washington may have never known what Facebook or Twitter are, but that doesn’t have to stop his influence from being shared on their platforms.

1. “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

2. “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.”

3. “Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.”

4. “It is far better to be alone, than to be in bad company.”

5. “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.”

6. “Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.”

7. “I had rather be on my farm than be emperor of the world.”

8. “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

9. “Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.”

10. “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.”

11. “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”

12. “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”

13. “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Source: https://www.bustle.com/p/george-washington-quotes-for-presidents-day-because-the-holiday-was-originally-in-honor-of-his-birthday-35473

Photo by Nikki Burch: "Dog gone"

Your pets could be in trouble in the shale region if they: breathe air, drink water, or enjoy being alive

From an Article by Amelia Urry, Grist Magazine, May 5, 2014

Fracking can ruin a lot of things: landscapes, rivers, ecosystems, the climate, your health and safety and that of your family. But have you thought about how it could hurt that other great American institution — the household pet?

Humans love their domesticated animals so much that the cumulative weight of the beasties overwhelms that of Earth’s other land mammals by several orders of magnitude, including humans. (Granted, cows make up a hefty chunk of that poundage, but dogs and their ilk are undeniably popular in the U.S.)

In an upcoming book called The Real Cost of Fracking, veterinarian Michelle Bamberger and Cornell professor Robert Oswald take on the question of how fracked our pets are, as well as the wider effects of natural gas extraction. To keep from hyperventilating with panic (and/or respiratory distress resulting from fracked-up air quality), let’s focus on Fido for now.

Disclaimer: While it’s difficult to prove that fracking causes any of the mysterious, unprecedented, terrible things that happen in rural America exactly when gas companies comes to town, Bamberger and Oswald do just fine with correlation, gathering sad anecdotes of frack-adjacent people and their ailing pets around the U.S.

Hold on to your gerbils, folks, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

Your pets have the most exposure time. Spot may run, but he rarely runs into town for groceries or a movie. He is there, in your house in downtown Fracktown, day in and day out. If methane or hydrogen sulfide or other nasties seep into the air, your pup is probably going to breathe more of it than you are.

What about your pet canary? No need to head to a coal mine to start measuring your toxic environment!

Your pets better get used to diesel fumes. When gas operations move into a town, trucks fume up and down the formerly quiet country roads that your golden retriever frequents. Those diesel belches are full of benzene, a carcinogen that is dangerous for dog AND his best friend.

Your pets are smaller than you, therefore weaker. Less body mass means a smaller dose of pollution packs more wallop. If you like to cry, you can find videos online that claim to show cats and other animals with apparent neurological damage from airborne fracking. (All right, here’s one — but don’t say I didn’t warn you.) Even larger animals can accumulate poisons quickly; Bamberger reports on healthy dogs and horses whose kidneys failed, a possible result of ingesting heavy metals or radioactive materials. Hear that, Misty of Chincoteague? You and Black Beauty better stay away from that aerosoled, irradiated wastewater.

I hope you don’t like puppies or kittens. Baby animals are even more vulnerable to environmental toxins. In some fracking towns, people have reported stillbirths and infant mortality among pets — as well as other cutesy farm critters, like calves, foals, and baby goats. Oh yeah: This may apply to baby humans, too.

Your pets are probably not drinking bottled water. Although we’re normally not big fans of bottled water, if your backyard well is within reach of fracking operations, you’re probably better off with the stuff. But does Kitty get to drink Dasani, too? Does Kitty occasionally lap water from puddles outside, where surface spills or intentional wastewater dispersal have taken place? Does Kitty have a death wish?

Your pet fish are screwed. Unless you’re likely to fill a 50-gallon tank with Poland Spring, your tropical fish hobby could take a hit when your tapwater comes laced with fracking fluid. Ditto that koi pond you carefully stocked last year. In fact, wild fish kills in rivers near fracking operations are also frequent, the result of spills or toxic algal blooms or even just low water levels after creeks are drained to power the thirsty industry.

You can’t prove anything. You may not know what is in the air or the water near fracking sites, thanks to proprietary secrets and poor monitoring. Of course, you can test your own water or air if you have a cool coupla Gs to shell out, but most people rely on industry to police itself. Even if you find the presence of a toxic substance in your tap, it could be hard to prove how it got there. So if your cats and dogs start dropping, good luck with that smoking gun.

Some hazards may include: hydrogen sulfide released during well-drilling; methane that escapes from equipment during extraction; mysterious fracking fluid that seeps into the water table; or the wastewater that flows back to the surface with whatever it happened to absorb from the underworld, and is often spread on roads or left to evaporate in ponds.

So, to sum up, if your pets perform any of the following activities in a shale-rich region, they could be in trouble: breathe air, drink water, enjoy being alive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reference:  Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald, “The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Boom is Threatening Our Families, Pets, and Food,” Beacon Press, August 5, 2014, 256 pages.  Cloth bound, $26.95.  www.beacon.org

Review: Art show mixes fracking with nature

Photo exhibit at Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY, August 28th to September 27th

At first glance, Brian Cohen’s panoramic photographs are merely pictures of the snowy, Pennsylvanian wilderness. But taking a second glance, it’s difficult to see that lurking behind the frostbitten trees is an industrial-looking tower storing the contents used in hydraulic fracturing.

Cohen is one of six photographers featured in the Marcellus Shale Documentary Project which made its debut at the Handwerker Gallery on Aug. 28. The project is a travelling photography exhibition and online archive that seeks to educate audiences on the social, environmental and economic impacts of fracking in Pennsylvania and on its residents. The exhibit also features photographers Noah Addis, Nina Berman, Scott Goldsmith, Lynn Johnson and Martha Rial.

Most of Cohen’s photographs in the exhibit show his human subjects outdoors and often grouped together with animals. Hidden behind trees or in mist in the background is the infrastructure of the pipeline along the Marcellus Shale, keeping a subtle but looming reminder of its threat.

Addis’ work, which documents naturalistic scenes obstructed by drilling machines, draws parallels between the affected residents and their environment.

His portraits leave no room for obscurity; the blank backdrop emphasizes the tired, resilient expression visible in all of his subjects. Resident Fred McIntyre’s wrinkled face mirrors the form of the gas pipeline construction along Valley Chapel Road in Morris, where a once-dense forest is now parted by the upheaval of land. These stylistic choices create emotionally charged images despite their objective banality.

Berman’s work lies more within the realm of traditional documentary photography, which is typically candid shots of people. As such, her style forgoes pin-sharp accuracy. Berman’s photographs play with reflections, and the juxtaposition of light and dark give her images a surrealism that justifies the collection’s artistic merit.

Goldsmith’s work tends toward abstraction. His use of alternative lenses — like windows and mirrors — give his photographs a quiet sense of observation. He crops figures and skylines, imitating the close ambiguity of the media’s coverage of fracking. Goldsmith’s depiction of the landscape is almost magical, and it has a deceiving quality; a black tarp in the water turns into gold, the water itself turns into fire and fireflies dance around fields supposedly misted by toxic fracking fluids.

Johnson’s collection of “impressions” from all corners of Pennsylvania was taken on her iPhone, a decision that amplifies, rather than inhibits, the effectiveness of her work. The portability and discretion of the iPhone allow Johnson to capture a less vulnerable, more defiant and determined subject. Candid, simple and viral, these photographs aim to translate this phenomenon into the visual language to which our technological society is more accustomed.

The saturation of Rial’s photographs brings a traitorous luminosity to the lives and landscape affected by the gas drilling. The vibrant reds, blues and greens act as an almost artificial additive to the underlying industrialization of this sector.

Despite the varied styles and subjects of these photographers, their collective message remains cohesive. Their images maintain an artistic quality not lessened by documentary intent.

Overall, the artists in the “Marcellus Shale Documentary Project” do a beautiful and subtle job of mingling the ugly reality of fracking with idyllic Pennsylvanian farms, wilderness and people.

The exhibition runs through Sept. 27. For more information visit: www.ithaca.edu/handwerker or www.the-msdp.us

>>>>>>MarkWest Flaring Marcellus “Wet Gas”

Check out this video of Shale Gas Fireballs at the MarkWest Cryogenic Separation Plant located just west of Houston, Washington County, PA.

Just received from SkyTruth regarding the MarkWest flaring activities is this latest incident.

WV Farm House & Land

WV Officials: Farming is the Future

From an Article by David Beard, The Morgantown Dominion Post, Sunday, May 5, 2013

Delegate Larry Williams and others are looking in to what may seem an unlikely — and overlooked — direction to bring prosperity to West Virginia: Farming.

“It just has all kinds of potential,” said Williams, D-Preston. West Virginia’s annual food consumption spending totals about $7.1 billion, said Williams, state Agriculture Commissioner Walt Helmick and WVU Extension’s West Virginia Small Farm Center Program Leader Tom McConnell.

Only a tiny portion of that — about $500 million — comes from West Virginia farms. “Is there an opportunity?” Helmick asked. “Absolutely a huge and significant opportunity. Can we grow all $7 billion? No.” But it’d be realistic to increase in-state production to $1 billion, he said. The big question is how.

The Legislature will study possible answers during the 2013 interims, thanks to a resolution Williams authored — HCR 139. “Larry is a good example of the person that should carry the ban- ner for agriculture and the promotion of agriculture,” Helmick said.

That’s apparent on HCR 139, which drew 37 co-sponsors, including Finance chair Harry Keith White, Judiciary chair Tim Miley, Health chair Don Perdue, Majority Leader Brent Boggs, Majority Whip Mike Caputo, and a number of Republicans.

West Virginia isn’t known as an agricultural state, McConnell said. A large part of the agribusiness industry is devoted to cattle: About 65 percent of the state’s 23,000 farms have beef cattle, making it the second-largest agricultural enterprise after contract poultry.

But feeder cattle, Mc-Connell said, are shipped out of state to get fattened and finished. Meanwhile, West Virginians consume about 72 million pounds of beef a year — most of it from outside the state and c o u n t r y. Expanding slaughter-rendering processing facilities for beef and pork could create 2,585 jobs, McConnell said. Right now, this industry employs less than 150 people.

A WVU Extension study by McConnell estimated the potential economic benefit of raising and processing all the beef and pork in-state at 14,295 additional jobs, when factoring the direct, indirect and induced effects of the production. Indirect and induced spending are the economic ripple effects of the original spending, as the cash flows through additional hands.

One place to start could be the schools, Williams said. Preston County has the only approved school-based slaughter and processing facility, he said. “It would be a great place to start a pilot project to show it could be done.” Williams noted that Preston County Schools just received funding for a support facility for the vocational-agricultural department’s plant — $451,000 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and $35,000 from the House of Delegates.

There’s also a need for more private facilities across the state, all three said. Another piece of the puzzle is fruits and vegetables. Since most farms are devoted to cattle, HCR 139 says, fruit and vegetable production has room to blossom.

If West Virginia farmers grew enough vegetables and fruits to meet 75 percent of the fresh seasonal produce needs of all West Virginians, the resolution says, it would create an estimated 1,330 jobs (519 jobs in farming and 398 jobs in food and beverage retail). The resulting increase in production would create an estimated $93.9 million in additional sales.

Helmick and McConnell note that West Virginia’s small farms can’t compete with the huge mega-farms in other states, so fruit and vegetable growing has to be approached on a regional and community basis, such as co-ops and direct farm-to-community sales. There may be a way to open new land to farming. Helmick said he’s meeting with officials from some southern West Virginia counties to talk about converting reclaimed mountaintop removal sites to farmland.

Along with land, the state needs more farmers, McConnell said. The WVU Extension Service exists to help with all this through e Education, support and vision. Williams is optimistic, too. “The sky’s the limit to this,” he said. “It’s going to take a lot of planning, and some people that have some vision. We have everything we need to do it.”

Helmick agrees. “It is an exciting time for agriculture in West Virginia.”

Note from S. Tom Bond:

All this is great, but West Virginians are not going to want to buy fruits and vegetables if they think they may be affected by polluted waters or organic vapors from shale drilling. And they are not going to buy animals that have been killed or aborted or otherwise affected by it, either. Dairy has already been adversely affected in Pennsylvania. And, royalties are like caffiene, it stimulates by decreasing debt, but you get dependent on it, and it lets you down in the long run.

Lost Creek, a village a few miles south of Clarksburg, is proud of the fact it was once the largest shipping point for cattle on the B&O Railroad between St. Louis and Baltimore. We have great climate, good rainfall and suitable soils, but difficult hillsides. Obviously with the increasing world population, food will be in demand. They say the average item on your plate travels 1600 miles. If we don’t transition to another form of energy, transportation may become even more expensive.

Also, quite obviously the shale drilling effort will be exhausted in a few decades, but the residues and drilling platforms and roads and rights-of-way for pipe lines will be conspicuous for hundreds of years. Bless the legislature for good intentions, but their pieces don’t fit together.

Land Disturbances Continue in Northcentral Appalachia

By S. Tom Bond, Co-Editor of FrackCheckWV and resident farmer in Lewis County, WV

Everyone generally accepts what the shale drilling industry says talking about the surface area it uses. We will call this the “spoil area,” an analogy to the term used in strip mining. Surface alteration is important because it is a very long term land use change.

The well pad itself is rocked sufficiently with crushed stone to support the weight of rigs and other heavy trucks no matter how wet or cold it may become. This means 12-18 inches of stone. The same is true of access roads. Then there are ditches around the uphill sides of this and frequently diversionary ditches are necessary beyond the drilling platform to protect in case of heavy rain.

There are wide rights of way cut through farmland or forest to lay pipelines. This will be traveled for inspection and repair as long as the collecting pipes are in use – as long as any well on the pad is producing. A right of way is usually 50 to 75 feet wide, but additional width is needed to lay the pipe – frequently there is a 100 foot “disturbance zone.” Likely, if the pipe is worth salvaging after the gas is exhausted, this greater width will be required again. Of course, laying and removal of pipe is not difficult to accomplish with modern earth moving equipment and sufficient dollars.

For comparison, remember a high school football fields is 360 feet long, goalpost to goalpost, and 160 feet wide, sideline to sideline. This is 57,600 square feet, and since 43,560 square feet is an acre, the football field is about 1.3 acres.

In my previous writings, the figures were 5-9 acres for well pad, drainage, access and pipelines. Recently the following email came from an acquaintance who is a highly qualified observer. His work takes him up dirt roads, all over farms and timberland and he must measure and estimate areas daily. Here is what he sent:

“I am seeing more timberland taken for pipelines now vs. well pads. The gas companies want a 100 foot wide disturbance area so every 435 feet of pipeline right of way takes an acre.

“I am seeing a number of pads taking up to 30 acres for the pad, frack and freshwater pits, soil stockpile areas, and roads not including right of ways.

“We have had our farm since 1974, raised our children on it and invested our life with plans to retire here, but with the unknown future of Marcellus and Utica drilling we are seriously thinking of selling out and moving out of West Virginia when I retire. The problem is there are no banks that will finance a house with a contaminated well.” (His land has been.)

This author recently received a disc with aerial photos of well sites in West Virginia. I was astounded. I am familiar with the many pipeline rights of way one finds between a line down the middle of Harrison County west into Doddridge County and over into Ritchie county when using Google Earth. They are long bare lines devoid of trees over the hilltops and show freshly disturbed earth when new. But the disc shows a multitude of drilling sites, mostly with ponds ready for drilling, during drilling and after the rig has been removed before reclamation. One at Mt. Claire, south of Clarksburg, has (or had at the time) no less than six ponds!

A Canadian newspaper recently had an article called “Shale Gas: How Hard on the Landscape?” This talks about “20-acre multi-well pads” and complaints about “industrial traffic, property devaluation, air pollution, ground water contamination and endless noise.”

In a study by Dr. Patrick Drohan of Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, half of the wells drilled in Pennsylvania are on agricultural land and most of the rest in forest land that was productive of timber. “The loss of agricultural land to shale-gas development presents some concern because, in some areas, drilling is now competing with food production for space on the landscape, the study states.”

And how much spoil area will there be? As they say, “That’s a good question!” In January, Bloomberg carried an article the U. S. Department of Energy reduced its estimate of “reserves” to one-third the previous figure, done by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), down to 141 trillion cubic feet. Reserves represent gas recoverable with present technology beyond areas with present drilling. This August the news had been the U. S. Geological Survey had reduced EIA’s estimate of 410 Trillion to 86 trillion cubic feet. At the same time several publications were printing articles based on industry claims that went to some 210 (originating with Standard and Poor, October), and 330 (IGT Investment, about the same time), etc.

We know the Marcellus and Utica underlie about 100,000 square miles. Marcellus areas in WV and PA are beginning to have the scars over much of this area. Let’s say half this area is economically viable and 50,000 square miles eventually are drilled. And let’s say fifteen acres per square mile for pads, ponds, pipelines, access roads, compressor stations and yards for equipment. Let’s leave out the area in Wisconsin where the sand is obtained and the area where the crushed stone for pads and access roads is obtained, along with the necessary infrastructure.

The 50,000 square miles times 15 acres per 640 acres in each square mile gives 750,000 acres. This is 1712 square miles. This is certainly not an exact figure, but it does represent the magnitude of the effect.

For comparison, Lewis County where I live, is 382 square miles. Harrison, next North is 417 square miles. Let’s throw in Marion and Monongalia Counties – still not as much area. OK, add three-quarters of Doddridge County. This is the same as the area made a “spoil area” for one hundred years or more for a few years gas production. Nearly the equivalent of five West Virginia counties is taken out for Marcellus and Utica development in Appalachia.

Land use change on this scale is unprecedented. Removal of the original forest, converting it to farm land, took generations and did not change the top soil and the biological function as much. The financial scale is warmly unappreciated by both the drilling and the financial industries, but is largely unrecognized by government, scientific and other sectors, including the protest movement. Keep in mind the figures here are for the Marcellus only. The author could find no figures for the area of all shale plays, but looking at the EIA map of shale plays in the United states, one can see that the Marcellus-Utica covers only one third or less, meaning total in the U. S. will be three or more times these figures, and much more world-wide.

No aggregate environmental impact assessment is being considered. Keeping the awareness of so much damage local is part of the industry preference for state, rather than national or local governance. State governments are too far away to sense the full impact of it, the way local governments do, and lack the resources and expertise to look at the dispersed phenomenon on an appropriate scale the way the federal government can.

With the growing population, the ever increasing understanding of Global Warming, and the relentless increase in use of fossil fuels it seems unlikely the world can continue on this path. Political resolve is more necessary than new technology. The old hydrocarbon world is strongly resisting a new world being born at its expense.

Thoughts on Leasing the Right to Produce Oil and Gas

By S. Thomas Bond

Leases, like many things, don’t get much deep thought by lessors or by lawyers. They just “are.” They are talked about, used, and sometimes fought over. Often there is much unhappiness as the result of features someone didn’t think out thoroughly. Lets clear away some of the fog.

Leases are almost always presented by a landman who approaches several people every day. He is a skilled practitioner of applied psychology. His interest is getting the mineral owner to sign. He does it every day, over and over. His pay depends on “taking the lease.” What he says doesn’t make any difference afterward. What counts is the signature on the bottom line, and what the lease says. Once “taken” the lease can be, and likely will be, sold to another company, making a profit for the company which took it originally.

The vast majority of lessors have but one property and “give” a lease only once. They don’t know the technical terms. To get paid for “dry gas” means the water is taken out, right? No, it means the gas liquids are taken out, the most valuable part. The lessor who signs a lease that stipulates “dry gas” gives away the most valuable part.

When “giving” a lease the owner usually doesn’t know what others are getting. People don’t like to talk about financial affairs. Many don’t realize it pays to be coy, the first offer is always as low as the corporation thinks it can use to get lessors. And “divide and conquer” is as old as leasing itself, making neighbors compete against each other.

The lease is an agreement in the form of a legally binding contract. It binds one person (the corporation, long thought of as a person in legal circles, recently elevated to personhood by the Supreme Court) which lives forever, and a single person, sometimes infirm of mind, for him/her self and all the heirs and whoever might buy the property for the indefinite future – actually, forever.

While the lessor thinks of one transaction, removal of one geological formation, to occur in the foreseeable future, the corporation is free to rope in as much else as possible. Getting additional geological formations in addition to the initial target is almost universal. Other benefits, such as using the leasehold for transportation to or from another leasehold, recovery of other types of minerals and storage of gases, are sometimes also “taken.” The lessor will try to get the most broad use of your surface as possible. Think to yourself, “What does he really need?”

Sometimes use of unanticipated methods of removal occurs with technology change. (Think of strip mining, when all anyone had known before was deep mining, or the souped-up form of drilling now used in place of the wooden rigs that were used when leases were taken decades ago.) The old terms still apply!

If you give a lease the Marcellus, your property will become part of one or more “drilling units,” which are designed with the geology and efficient use of the current technology for drilling in mind. If you refuse to lease, this interferes with the engineering plan and your gas may be taken anyway. A large part of the leasing objective is to tie up as much land as possible. The “reserves” put together this way, with the drilling rights, are much more valuable than the original, individual tracts. It is very profitable to put together large tracts that can be engineered to efficiently drill many wells.

“Separation of estates” as it is called, is great for the corporation because “remote owners,” people who own the oil and gas or the “minerals,” tend to see the income from their estate as “manna from heaven,” and don’t bargain or watch royalty closely, just accepting what comes their way. Damage to other estates means nothing to them.

Many of the provisions of oil and gas leases were first conceived by corporations in the “Robber Baron Age” one hundred years or more ago. They are so ensconced in practice no one considers them unfair anymore. Even lawyers who have their own property to lease accept these provisions which have nothing to do with the business at hand, but are rip-offs by the corporation in anticipation of some future benefit.

Can lessors write the contract? Technically, they can, of course. A corporation might accept terms if they were good for them, but since they prefer secrecy and confusion, they might not, especially if the terms were made public.

If the lessor finds certain clauses objectionable, they can be struck out, or the lease retyped without them. Additional clauses may be added, too. These are called an addendum, and must be signed by both parties

A lawyer’s advice on modification of a lease is highly desirable. The lessor may not see every ramification of the wording. Don’t expect a lawyer to point out all the ways a lease is slanted in favor of the corporation, though. From Law School on, lawyers have seen many of these provisions as standard practice, and haven’t given a thought about whether they are really necessary for allowing the corporation to achieve its immediate objective of removing the resource that society is willing to pay for.

Lease language tends to be full of long, tedious sentences, full of technical terms. Many words have special meaning in law. The lease handed you by the landman is written by lawyers for lawyers. However, not every lawyer is good at oil and gas law. On the other hand, some are specialists. Most know there is more to be gotten from the drilling companies than from property owners. This is a sad fact of life. Ask around among knowledgeable property owners for a lawyer you can trust to represent you fairly. Take time, think about it, talk to others, the company can wait. Never, ever, sign any lease on the spot when it is handed to you. The first offer is for suckers.

Never forget you are in an adversarial position (your interests and wealth against their interests and wealth) with respect to those getting your minerals. The old saying “Nice guys come in last” was never more true than it is here. How do you suppose the industry leaders got to positions of wealth and power?

>>> S. Tom Bond farms 500 acres in Lewis County.  He is a retired chemistry professor and is now active with the Guardians of the West Fork and with the Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact <<<