<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Frack Check WV &#187; NE PA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frackcheckwv.net/tag/ne-pa/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.frackcheckwv.net</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:41:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>LNG Export Terminal in New Jersey, Worse than Previously Revealed</title>
		<link>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2019/07/22/lng-export-terminal-in-new-jersey-worse-than-previously-revealed/</link>
		<comments>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2019/07/22/lng-export-terminal-in-new-jersey-worse-than-previously-revealed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LNG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marcellus shale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NE PA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tanker trucks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US-ACE]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=28787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[LNG export terminal would take 360 trucks a day, 24/7 From an Article by Jon Hurdle, New Jersey Spotlight, July 17, 2019 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers divulged new details yesterday about plans for New Jersey’s first export terminal for liquefied natural gas, showing it would be supplied by as many as 15 trucks [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p><div id="attachment_28788" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 300px">
	<a href="/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/8FEC709F-1C4E-4B2C-852A-2AAD833447A2.jpeg"><img src="/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/8FEC709F-1C4E-4B2C-852A-2AAD833447A2.jpeg" alt="" title="8FEC709F-1C4E-4B2C-852A-2AAD833447A2" width="300" height="200" class="size-full wp-image-28788" /></a>
	<p class="wp-caption-text">LNG Tanker Ships are Gross Contributors to Global Climate Change</p>
</div><strong>LNG export terminal would take 360 trucks a day, 24/7</strong></p>
<p>From an <a href="https://www.njspotlight.com/stories/19/07/16/lng-export-terminal-would-take-360-trucks-a-day-24-7-army-corps-says/">Article by Jon Hurdle, New Jersey Spotlight</a>, July 17, 2019</p>
<p>The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers divulged new details yesterday about plans for New Jersey’s first export terminal for liquefied natural gas, showing it would be supplied by as many as 15 trucks an hour — around the clock — to fill an ocean-going tanker every two weeks.</p>
<p>The previously unpublished information about the proposed terminal at Gibbstown in Gloucester County, the Army Corps said Tuesday, came from new details it had received about the plan by the developer, Delaware River Partners, since the agency published an earlier notice on the project in April.</p>
<p>The new document said LNG — a super-cooled form of natural gas that can explode if its vapor is mixed with air in an enclosed space — would not be processed or stored on site but would be pumped directly from trucks into ships.</p>
<p>To limit the impact of the heavy truck traffic on residential areas, Gloucester County is proposing a new access road to a port that would be expanded to accommodate the terminal, the document said. The new road would be about 110 feet from the nearest residential area; the terminal’s loading area would be built at least a mile away from those homes.</p>
<p>The developer has also proposed carrying the LNG to the terminal by rail but that idea hasn’t yet been approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Army Corps report said. Until that happens, the Corps said it’s not possible to predict the volume of LNG that would arrive by rail or the number of trains.</p>
<p><strong>Opening markets for fracked Marcellus Shale gas</strong></p>
<p>The Corps, which must approve some aspects of the planned Gibbstown Logistics Center, said there was nothing inaccurate about its first notice, but that it wanted to “expand our discussion of the public interest factors relevant to the Corps of Engineers review” of the project.</p>
<p>But disclosure of the new detail may fuel critics who say that DRP and some government agencies have not been fully transparent about a project that would bring explosive materials to a residential area, and which would stimulate the production of fracked natural gas, boosting climate-changing carbon emissions.</p>
<p>The gas, harvested from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale would be liquefied at a proposed plant in Bradford County, Pa., built by New Fortress Energy, a LNG company.</p>
<p>The terminal would expand the market for gas from the Marcellus geological formation — one of the biggest reserves in the world — after about a decade in which some of it has been “shut-in” because of a shortage of pipelines or other infrastructure for shipping it to customers.</p>
<p>If built, the Gibbstown facility would be the first LNG export terminal in New Jersey, and would join at least nine others around the country built over the last decade in response to the boom in production of natural gas obtained by fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing.</p>
<p>Critics have accused DRP and some government agencies of covering up the details of their plans, which would result in 360 trucks a day, each carrying 12,000 gallons of LNG, leaving the planned liquefaction plant in northeastern Pennsylvania and arriving in Gibbstown 24 hours a day. The terminal would have the capacity to export 1.67 million barrels of LNG per month.</p>
<p>“New Fortress Energy keeps playing games, and only giving out little bits of information at a time,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “Every day we look at this, the project gets bigger and more dangerous.”</p>
<p><strong>‘Supplemental public notice’ seems appropriate</strong> </p>
<p>Tittel argued that the Corps acted properly in issuing the new notice because it needed to make the public aware of the new information from the applicant.</p>
<p>Steve Rochette, a spokesman for the Corps’ Philadelphia office, said the new notice arose from conversations with the applicant since the first notice was issued.</p>
<p>“As a result of those conversations, this office felt the public would benefit from a supplemental public notice explaining the project in more detail. This in turn will allow the public to better understand the project and address any concerns that may arise,” he wrote in an email.</p>
<p>In evaluating the application for permits, the Corps said it will consider a range of factors including whether the project would help to meet national and local energy needs; whether dredging and dock construction would affect water quality, and whether those activities would erode shorelines.</p>
<p>DRP’s plans to dredge the Delaware River and construct an extra dock got a green light last month from the Delaware River Basin Commission in the face of criticism from environmentalists that it had not allowed the public the opportunity to comment. The DRBC said this week it is considering a request by the environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper Network to take another look at its approval, and hold a public hearing.</p>
<p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>></p>
<p><strong>NOTICE TO RESIDENTS, CONSERVATIONISTS &#038; VACATIONERS</strong></p>
<p>Beware to Delaware Bay, Cape Henlopen State Park, as well as the beaches including Lewes, Cape Shores, Rehoboth, etc. Sediment can become a problem. Fish kills can occur.  The increased shipping can interfere with existing activities as the Cape May to Lewes Ferry. DGN</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2019/07/22/lng-export-terminal-in-new-jersey-worse-than-previously-revealed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Higher Natural Gas Levels in Water Wells Near Marcellus Fracking Sites</title>
		<link>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/06/26/higher-natural-gas-levels-in-drinking-water-wells-near-marcellus-fracking-sites/</link>
		<comments>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/06/26/higher-natural-gas-levels-in-drinking-water-wells-near-marcellus-fracking-sites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Duane Nichols</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drinking water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duke University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marcellus shale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NE PA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[northeast Penna.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water wells]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=8685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well Water &#8212; Northeast Penna. Duke University Study Finds Higher Gas Levels in Drinking Water Wells Near Marcellus Fracking Sites From Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, EcoWatch.org, June 24, 2013 Some homeowners living near shale gas wells appear to be at higher risk of drinking water contamination from stray gases, according to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><div class="mceTemp">
<dl id="attachment_8686" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 160px;">
<dt class="wp-caption-dt"><a href="/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Duke-photo-Dimock-well-water.jpg"><img class="size-thumbnail wp-image-8686" title="Duke photo - Dimock well water" src="/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Duke-photo-Dimock-well-water-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a></dt>
<dd class="wp-caption-dd">Well Water &#8212; Northeast Penna.</dd>
</dl>
<p><strong>Duke University Study Finds Higher Gas Levels in Drinking Water Wells Near Marcellus Fracking Sites</strong></p>
<p><strong>From <a title="http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/" href="http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/" target="_blank">Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University</a>, <a title="EcoWatch.org report of Duke University research on well water in NE PA" href="http://ecowatch.com/2013/duke-study-gas-water-wells-marcellus-fracking/" target="_blank">EcoWatch.org</a>, June 24, 2013</strong></p>
<p>Some homeowners living near <a title="http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/fracking-2/" href="http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/fracking-2/" target="_blank"><strong>shale gas</strong></a> wells appear to be at higher risk of drinking water contamination from stray gases, according to a new Duke University-led study, <em><a title="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full.pdf+html" href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full.pdf+html" target="_blank"><strong>Increased Stray Gas Abundance in a Subset of Drinking Water Wells Near Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction</strong></a>.</em></p>
<p>A Dimock, Pa., resident who did not want to be identified pours a glass of water taken from his well after the start of natural gas drilling in 2009. Photo credit: Reuters.</p>
<p>The scientists analyzed 141 drinking water samples from private water wells across northeastern Pennsylvania’s gas-rich Marcellus Shale basin.</p>
<p>They found that, on average, methane concentrations were six times higher and ethane concentrations were 23 times higher at homes within a kilometer of a shale gas well. Propane was detected in 10 samples, all of them from homes within a kilometer of drilling.</p>
<p>“The methane, ethane and propane data, and new evidence from hydrocarbon and helium content, all suggest that drilling has affected some homeowners’ water,” said Robert B. Jackson, a professor of environmental sciences at <a title="http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/" href="http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/" target="_blank"><strong>Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment</strong></a>. “In a minority of cases the gas even looks Marcellus-like, probably caused by poor well construction.”</p>
<p>The ethane and propane data are “particularly interesting,” he noted, “since there is no biological source of ethane and propane in the region and Marcellus gas is high in both, and higher in concentration than Upper Devonian gases” found in formations overlying the Marcellus shale.</p>
<p>The scientists examined which factors might explain their results, including topography, distance to gas wells and distance to geologic features. “Distance to gas wells was, by far, the most significant factor influencing gases in the drinking water we sampled,” said Jackson.</p>
<p>The team published its peer-reviewed findings this week in the online <em>Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em>.</p>
<p>Shale gas extraction—a process that includes horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—has fueled concerns in recent years about contamination of nearby drinking water supplies.</p>
<p>Two previous Duke-led studies found direct evidence of methane contamination in water wells near shale-gas drilling in northeastern Pennsylvania, as well as possible hydraulic connectivity between deep brines and shallow aquifers. A third study, conducted with U.S. Geological Survey scientists, found no evidence of drinking water contamination from shale gas production in Arkansas. None of the studies found evidence of current contamination by hydraulic fracturing fluids.</p>
<p>The new study is the first to offer direct evidence of ethane and propane contamination.</p>
<p>“Our studies demonstrate that the integrity of gas wells, as well as variations in local and regional geology, play major roles in determining the possible risk of groundwater impacts from shale gas development. As such, they must be taken into consideration before drilling begins,” said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School.</p>
<p>“The new data reinforces our earlier observations that stray gases contaminate drinking water wells in some areas of the Marcellus shale. The question is what is happening in other shale gas basins,” Vengosh said.</p>
<p>“The helium data in this study are the first in a new tool kit we’ve developed for identifying contamination using noble gas geochemistry,” said Thomas H. Darrah, a research scientist in geology, also at Duke’s Nicholas School. “These new tools allow us to identify and trace contaminants with a high degree of certainty through multiple lines of evidence.”</p>
<p>Co-authors of the new study are Nathaniel Warner, Adrian Down, Kaiguang Zhao and Jonathan Karr, all of Duke; Robert Poreda of the University of Rochester; and Stephen Osborn of California State Polytechnic University. Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and the Duke Center on Global Change funded the research.</p>
<p><strong>Visit EcoWatch’s <a title="http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/fracking-2/" href="http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/fracking-2/" target="_blank">FRACKING</a> page for more related news on this topic.</strong></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/06/26/higher-natural-gas-levels-in-drinking-water-wells-near-marcellus-fracking-sites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
