The Halliburton Exclusions have exempted Drilling & Fracking for far too long

​——→ Check out the schedule and events here​

Speakers from the following Groups: Beyond Petrochemicals Campaign, Beyond Plastics, Beyond Extreme Energy, Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, Communitopia, Concerned Citizens of Navarro County, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability(DCS), Earth Dog Films, Fracking the System, Earthworks, Environmental Health News, FracTracker Alliance, Keep It Wild, Lisa Johnson and Associates, OJI:SDA’ Sustainable Indigenous Futures, Ohio River Valley Institute, Park Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, Property Rights and Pipeline Center, ReImagine Appalachia, Sierra Club, The Natural History Museum, Yale School of Public Health and Yale Cancer Center

Topics / Presentations: Precautionary approach to fighting oil & gas; Playing the long game: Overcoming defeat and setting new goals in the oil & gas fight; Telling the truth about plastic pollution;Pushing back against the Bitcoin Empire in Texas; “We Refuse to Die” – On our exhibition, movement building, and media campaign to stop the petrochemical expansion; Stopping gas exports to protect public health and avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis!; Shared Prosperity in the Ohio River Valley; Using maps to inspire action; Journalism on plastic, toxic chemicals, and oil & gas pollution; Victory against the Epiphany Allegheny corporation and the ongoing battle against the Northern Access Pipeline in NY; Building power across labor, environmental advocates, faith leaders, and racial justice leaders in Appalachia; The Beyond Petrochemicals Campaign; Colorado’s oil and gas wars – Upcoming documentary film; FLIR Cameras – Making the invisible visible; Skill building for grassroots organizers; Legal advocacy for fracking victims and learning industry tactics; Getting a statewide fracking ban on the ballot in Michigan; Protecting landowners’ rights against pipeline development; and Addressing the Health Impacts of Fracking

Full details and guest speaker profiles are underway and will be added soon!

At the conclusion of the summit you’re invited to participate in a National Strategy call to discuss what is next and needed for the anti-fracking movement to be successful. Please participate and share what you’re working on with others.

Please register and invite your colleagues at https://lu.ma/2022-network-summit

Sincerely, Ryan Clover, Halt the Harm Network

Northwestern West Virginia is of primary interest for natural gas development

ATTN: Wade Stansberry, Environmental Resources Specialist, Office of Oil and Gas, WV. Department of Environmental Protection, 601 57th Street, SE, Charleston WV

Re: Permit Number: 061-01914, Well Number: Dolls Run 1H, County: Monongalia, Operator: Northeast Natural Energy

For many years, two separate households of friends who live in Cassville have told me how the noise coming from the Boggess and Lemley fracking well pads made it impossible for them to get a good night’s sleep or to function fully. I have often heard the noise from the Boggess well pad while walking along Sugar Grove Road, several miles away.

So it was with alarm that I saw the permit application for a fracking pad that will be 1.4 miles from our home, situated on a ridge top where the sound will travel directly down Dents Run, along Mel Brand Road and Gallus Road, where we live. We work from home so will be subject to the noise 24/7.

A study done by the WVU School of Public Health (May 28, 2013) for the WVDEP, as requested by the WV State Code: Chapter 22-6A-12(e) regarding the impacts of noise, light, dust and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated by the drilling of horizontal wells inconclusively said: Due to the transient nature and/or frequency of sound, the agency recognizes that noises may be perceived as a nuisance, even though measurements indicate no harm.

The noise tests were done between July and October, 2012, when leaves on the trees will dampen noise. Clearly the noise will be worse during the six months when leaves are not on the trees. The acoustics of our valley are such that we could hear our neighbor, whose house was about 200 yards away, when she was talking on her front porch.

An official chart may say that noise levels are within safe decibel levels, but our perception of it could be quite different, depending on many factors. How will this be addressed?

Given how many people live in the Cassville, Sugar Grove and New Hill area, a lot of people will have their health, sleep and ability to function adversely impacted by the constant noise. New Hill has a high density of housing. What noise abatement procedures will be put in place? I saw no mention of this in the permit application.

Further, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) and other toxic hydrocarbons, such as formaldehyde, released from oil and gas operations and equipment can lead to health impacts ranging from irritation of eyes, nose, mouth and throat to aggravated asthma and other respiratory conditions, blood disorders, harm to developing fetuses, immune system-related diseases, and cancer (e.g., leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and Ewing Sarcoma).

A study commissioned by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection found that, at many sites, a 625-feet distance from oil and gas activity—above the distances set by many states—still resulted in benzene concentrations above levels the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers “the minimum risk level for no health effects.” At least one of the BTEX compounds was found at all of the seven drilling sites examined. from: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, “Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results For Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations (ETD‐10 Project),” Charleston, WV.

Today, October 5, a community meeting in Canonsburg, PA is scheduled to update residents on PA Health & Environment Studies and to discuss health impacts of shale gas development. Residents are concerned that fracking may be to blame for the spike in rare childhood cancers and other health impacts in Southwestern Pennsylvania. According to the maps provided in the NNE permit application, we will be down wind of the well pad. While we are just beyond the one-mile radius, how can we know that a strong wind won’t carry VOCs over our house?

More importantly, it should be obvious that a warming climate is a threat to everyone on earth. How much money must we spend on the enormous damage done by hurricanes and wildfires, which have all gotten bigger and more frequent as a result of putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas may be cleaner to burn than coal but extracting it is much dirtier. Investment in clean energy is the only viable way forward.

In 2012-14, we got a front row seat to a strip mine directly across our fence line and were subjected to blasting, dust and back-up beeping noise. I documented at least 139 times that our house was shaken by blasts from the Bucy 1, 2 and 3 strip mines. Bucy 3 Mine, in front of our house, is still sitting there, abandoned. Why do we have to keep fighting theses battles? Why do so many people have to pay the price so that a handful of people can make money?

Why does this new well pad have to be placed on a ridge top where it will have maximum impact in all directions? I request that this permit be denied, based on how many people will be negatively impacted by the noise and pollution. I would also request written notice of the permit decision.

Sincerely, Betsy Lawson, Monongalia County, WV

#######+++++++#######+++++++#######

See Also: A Guide to Every Permitted Natural Gas Well in West Virginia by Al Shaw (ProPublica) and Kate Mishkin (Charleston Gazette-Mail), March 6, 2019

Southwestern Energy contributed to Cheat River restoration, but ...

From an Article by Chris Dickerson, West Virginia Record, April 6, 2022

WHEELING – An Ohio County couple have filed a lawsuit alleging an energy company and its contractors continuously trespass on their property adjacent to an oil and gas well pad.

David and Sara Dent filed their complaint April 6 in Ohio Circuit Court against SWN Energy Services Company, Burns Drilling & Excavating Company, Elite Gasfield Services, Halliburton Energy Services, Brownlee Lumber & Supply, Williams Energy Resources and RDR Utility Service Group.

“It is so constant that it has rendered the Dent’s property no longer their own,” attorney Teresa Toriseva said in a press release. “As many of the local residents know, Southwestern Energy is a Texas-based oil and gas corporation.

“In this situation, it is alleged SWN and its contractors have been trespassing on the Dent family’s land for years with no regard for the family’s rights. With no end to this in sight and no response from the oil and gas corporation that it will correct this, these landowners seek a remedy in the courts to regain control of their homestead.”

According to the complaint, the Dents selected their rural property just off GC&P Road near Triadelphia in 2008 for its beauty and tranquility. But in 2012, they say that was destroyed when Southwestern constructed the well pad across from their home.

The plaintiffs say commercial oil and gas trucks servicing the SWN pad trespass on their property to turn themselves around to drive up the access road. “The oil and gas traffic is unrelenting,” the complaint states. “These large trucks trespass on the Dent property every day. The large trucks don’t just turn around, the trucks often sit parked in the Dents’ driveway idling noisily at all hours of the day and night as though they have permission. They do not.

“The Dents, and all West Virginia landowners, have the right to control who is and who is not allowed on their property. This lawsuit seeks damages and to regain that legal control over their property.”

The plaintiffs’ home, according to the complaint, is located at the end of a paved driveway to access the home. The Plaintiffs must travel over a creek bed across a bridge that’s on their property. If this driveway is blocked or unable to be traveled, the plaintiffs are unable to access their home.

“To access the well pad vehicles must travel up a steep and winding hillside on an access roadway to access the well pad,” the complaint states. “As the plaintiffs’ property is across the road from the entrance to the access road, vehicles traveling to the well pad regularly pull into or back down the plaintiffs’ driveway to reposition their vehicle to negotiate the steep access road to the well pad.

“At no time has any of the defendants asked for or received permission from the plaintiffs to enter their property or use their driveway. These vehicles enter plaintiffs’ property without permission and do so at all hours of the night and day without warning or any discernable pattern.”

The Dents say the vehicles could easily travel to a nearby intersection and find a more suitable place to turn around. They say they and their two children under 10 have been awakened countless times by vehicles traveling to the well pad, pulling into their driveway and shining their headlights directly into the home.

As the vehicles often sit and idle in the driveway awaiting clearance to travel to the well pad, the Dents say they have arrived at their property unable to access their own driveway due to vehicles and other equipment either parked in their driveway or blocking their driveway.

“Plaintiffs’ driveway was meant to be an access road to the plaintiffs’ property only, it was not constructed, nor is it maintained to manage heavyweight vehicles,” the complaint states. “At all times relevant hereto the claims made herein the plaintiffs’ property is and has been posted with “No Trespassing” signs and placards.”

The Dents say employees of the defendants have even left their vehicles and trespassed on their property on foot for unknown reasons. In addition to the vehicles blocking and using their driveway, the Dents also say a Williams truck hit their fence, damaging the top rail on July 28, 2021. Another truck left black marks on their driveway as its tires slipped.

And, the Dents say run off from the access road also trespasses upon their property and that black salt used to treat the SWN access road ends up in their yard and the stream in front of their home. They say some large trees have been killed by the run off.

Also, they say when drainpipes are clogged with mud, silt, and other run off, the culvert leading from the access road discharges water violently onto their property and that heavy rains now cause their front yard to turn into a small pond.

To keep up with the damage and erosion, the Dents say they had to buy a tractor to clean the property. “But for the damage to their property associated with the trespass and run off, the plaintiffs would not have been required to spend over $20,000 on a tractor large enough to do the work they needed,” the complaint states.

The Dents say they have talked to SWN officials about the problem, but they say the company “completely disregarded” their concerns and complaints. They accuses the defendants of trespass and nuisance, and they accuse SWN of injury to trees and plants.

“Few concepts are more ‘American’ than the right of landowners to protect their land from unwanted intrusions,” the complaint states, also quoting an 1895 West Virginia ruling in a case styled Haigh v. Bell, which said, “In every case where one man has a right to exclude another from his land, the common law encircles it, if not enclosed already, with an imaginary fence. And to break such imaginary fence, and enter the close of another, is a trespass.”

The Dents seek to have the court enjoin the defendants from trespassing on their property. They request an evidentiary hearing within 10 days whether the emergency temporary restraining order is granted or not. They are being represented by Toriseva, Josh Miller and Michael Kuhn of Toriseva Law in Wheeling. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge David A. Sims.

(Ohio County WV Circuit Court case number 22-C-52)

Families with children are caught up in these sacrifice zones

Article by Kristina Marusic, Reporter, Environmental Health News, March 1, 2021

This is part 4 of our 4-part series, “Fractured,” an investigation of fracking chemicals in the air, water, and people of western Pennsylvania.

WESTMORELAND COUNTY, Pa.—On a balmy evening in September of 2019, eight women gathered around a conference table in a small office about 25 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. A statewide network of fracking and conventional wells, pipelines, and petrochemical plants is closing in on their communities.

As a mother of four and the outreach coordinator for the nonprofit organization hosting this event, Ann LeCuyer was comfortable telling people what to do. She’d spent the last four years helping the group, Protect PT (short for Protect Penn-Trafford), work to keep fracking out of the small municipalities of Penn Township, Trafford, and surrounding neighborhoods.

In that time, Ann and her boss, Protect PT co-founder and executive director Gillian Graber, had compiled thousands of documents detailing the oil and gas industry’s plans in the region. They’d invited all of the group’s several dozen members to their office to learn how to access them—but only women showed up. “This is pretty typical for us, actually” said Gillian, a middle-aged mom of two with chocolate-brown hair and a no-nonsense demeanor.

“I think it’s because we’re moms, so we have more at stake when it comes to our children and grandchildren,” she told Environmental Health News (EHN), noting that every member in attendance had kids and half also had grandkids. “My husband is on the board and we do have some very passionate male members. But it tends to be the women who consistently show up.”

The group chattered and laughed through the presentation until Ann pulled up a map of the planned route for the Mariner East 2 Pipeline, sending a brief hush through the room. “It’s so close to my house!” someone exclaimed. “Look, I’m in the blast zone and I didn’t even know until now.”

Mariner East 2 is one of three pipelines (along with Mariner East 1 and Mariner East 2X) being constructed to carry highly flammable natural gas liquids—liquid components of natural gas that have been separated out—350 miles from the Utica and Marcellus Shale plays in eastern Ohio, the northern panhandle of West Virginia, and across Pennsylvania to processing facilities at Philadelphia ports. From there, the end products will be carried overseas by ship for use in plastics production. (Ethane, a byproduct of fracking, is used to manufacture plastics.)

The project is orchestrated by Sunoco’s parent company Energy Transfer LP, which also owns the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The Mariner East pipeline projects have been rife with accidents, spills, and controversy, in part because Pennsylvania doesn’t have a state agency that oversees the placement of such pipelines. The planned route runs across people’s yards and within a half mile of 23 public schools and 17 private schools, which worries residents due to the company’s safety record: Between 2002 and the end of 2017, Energy Transfer LP pipelines experienced a leak or an accident every 11 days on average.

Pipeline construction in Pennsylvania has already resulted in sinkholes, polluted waterways on public land, and an explosion in a town 35 miles west of Pittsburgh that destroyed a house. At least 25 other sites along the proposed pipeline route have been identified as being at risk for similar accidents. The Pennsylvania Utility Commission is fighting in court to keep its calculations on potential damage if such accidents occured secret, even though a recent investigation by Spotlight PA found many communities in the “blast zone”—the areas adjacent to the pipeline that could be engulfed in flames in the event of a pipeline explosion—lack adequate emergency response plans.

Gillian told the group that they planned to canvas in the blast zone nearby to inform residents they’d be at risk if the pipeline is completed. “Oh, we’re canvassing, ladies!” chirped the oldest of the group, a spry 81-year-old. “If we can stop the pipeline, we can stop the well pads. I’m getting my muckboots out!”

Gillian initially started Protect PT in 2015 because she wanted to stop a fracking well proposal about a quarter of a mile from her house in neighboring Penn Township. So far, her efforts have been successful—the well, which is owned by Apex Energy, received a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2018, but has yet to be drilled in part because of Protect PT lawsuits.

But that fracking well victory is overshadowed by a vast industrial infrastructure in the state and the region that goes well beyond unconventional drilling.

In the summer of 2019, EHN collected air, water, and urine samples from five households in southwestern Pennsylvania, including Ann and Gillian’s families, and had them analyzed for chemicals associated with fracking. EHN included Ann and Gillian’s families because they live further away from fracking wells than the families we looked at in Washington County. However, despite their relative distance from fracking wells, we found they also faced above average levels of exposure to numerous chemicals associated with pollution from the oil and gas industry.

While Project PT and similar groups target new pipelines, or plastics plants, or fracking wells in court — or just the court of public opinion — it has become a game of whack-a-mole in a state where oil and gas production, infrastructure, and transportation are so ubiquitous.

“It’s just alarming to think that with all the stuff that we’re doing to be careful, we’re still being exposed to all these chemicals,” Gillian told EHN.

>>>>>……….>>>>>……….>>>>>……….>>>>>

See also: Fractured: FAQs page, Douglas Fischer, February 25, 2021

“We found alarming exposures to likely fracking pollution. But that’s just the beginning of the story.”

Good regulations or a full ban on fracking needed to “halt the harm”

From Ryan Clover, Halt the Harm Network, February 27, 2021

I wanted to make sure you heard about this before Monday, so sending this out on the weekend. Kristina Marusic, a reporter with Environmental Health News is dropping a major story about fracking and children’s health that is two years in the making.

In 2019, Environmental Health Sciences, a nonpartisan news and science organization, tested the air, water and urine of several families living in and around fracking operations in Southwestern Pennsylvania. The results of this groundbreaking study, being released on Monday, March 1, are breathtaking.

At 1:00 PM she’ll be giving a presentation along with EHN director Douglas Fischer to share the report. Click here to RSVP for the webinar.​

Do you or a loved one live near fracking operations? Do you know what’s in the air and water, and what may be migrating into your body – or the body of your children?

​In 2019, Environmental Health Sciences, a nonpartisan news and science organization, tested the air, water and urine of several families living in and around fracking operations in Southwestern Pennsylvania. The results of this groundbreaking study, released on Monday, March 1, are breathtaking.

We’re hosting a special webinar to go along with the report’s release. More details coming soon, but for now you can sign-up here and, mark your calendar for 1:00 PM on Monday, March 1st.

Join EHS director Douglas Fischer, reporter Kristina Marusic for a brief presentation and discussion on how EHS conducted the study, what the organization found, what to do next, and why we need more biomonitoring like this.

Here’s the link again, https://www.crowdcast.io/e/fracking-and-personal​

Thanks, Ryan Clover,
Halt the Harm Network

>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>

​Supporting Your Fight Against The Gas Industry — Join The Discussion:

https://www.thecampaignnetwork.org​

Halt the Harm Network, 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW,
Suite 440, Washington, District of Columbia 20015

Denver protests of O & G operations in Colorado

From an Article by Chase Woodruff, Westword News, July 31, 2019

Protests briefly shut down a meeting of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission today, July 31, as climate and environmental activists continued to pressure the agency to crack down on the fossil fuel industry.

The meeting was the third regularly scheduled monthly hearing of the COGCC since the passage of a landmark oil and gas reform bill earlier this year — and by far the most contentious. In response to past complaints about cramped hearing rooms at the COGCC’s Denver headquarters, it was held at the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs, where commissioners heard from dozens of speakers during the three-hour public-comment period that began the hearing.

“We are suffering,” AnnMarie Cleary, a Broomfield resident who lives near a fracking site, told commissioners. “We’ve reported it. We’ve gone to doctors. We have health issues. This commission is a new commission, with a new vision, and the vision now is to first protect health and safety. We can no longer go on allowing everything until those rules are established.”

Tensions ran high throughout the comment period, as activists from a wide range of grassroots environmental groups held up protest signs, interrupted pro-industry speakers and repeatedly clashed with COGCC officials.

“The reason that we’re showing up and making more noise is that we’ve tried it your way,” said Suzanne Spiegel, an activist with anti-fracking group Colorado Rising. “We tried to be polite, and yet you haven’t denied a single permit.”

Demonstrators donned breathing masks, coughed over speakers who defended the oil and gas industry and displayed signs calling attention to the “F” rating given to the Denver metro area’s air quality by the American Lung Association. Oil and gas sites are known emitters of ozone-forming pollutants like nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, and studies have shown that industry facilities along the Front Range are among the top contributors to the region’s elevated ozone levels, accounting for nearly half of the region’s local ozone production.

As protests began, Dan Gibbs, the director of the state’s Department of Natural Resources, which oversees the COGCC, called a recess that lasted about twenty minutes. A security guard was present as the hearing resumed, and two Denver police officers were stationed inside the meeting room shortly afterward.

Gibbs repeatedly asked demonstrators to quiet down and be respectful of all speakers, and at one point objected to what he called the “intimidation” of industry proponents. “I don’t think that’s the Colorado way,” he said.

Following the end of the public comment period, activists again disrupted the meeting, spreading out across the room to hold up banners and chant protest slogans. “No more fracking, no more oil, keep the carbon in the soil,” activists chanted as Gibbs called another recess and most commissioners filed out of the room.

As they have since the passage of Senate Bill 181 (the oil and gas reform legislation signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May), activists urged commissioners to impose a moratorium on new drilling permits until the law is fully implemented, and argued that continued fossil fuel development is incompatible with the state’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Deborah McNamara, an activist with 350 Colorado, pointed commissioners to the most recent report issued by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned that the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions nearly in half by 2030 to keep warming below catastrophic levels. “The most reasonable response to this information, for this commission, would be to do exactly what is recommended: rapidly phase out CO2 emissions,” McNamara said.

Over 90 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are the result of the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and natural gas, the production of both of which has soared in Colorado over the past two decades. State officials, like their counterparts in many other governments around the world, have enacted a slate of so-called demand-side energy policies that seek to reduce the need for fossil fuels by incentivizing new renewable electricity generation and the electrification of transportation, heating and other sectors. But many activists with groups like 350 Colorado believe that these demand-side policies should be accompanied by tougher restrictions on the supply of fossil fuels, enacted by bodies like the COGCC.

“This should be front and center on all decision-making processes,” McNamara said. “You should ensure that you have an immediate short-term as well as a long-term plan to rapidly transition away from oil and gas in our state, and toward a renewable energy infrastructure.”

Activists departed Wednesday’s hearing after their brief demonstration, leaving commissioners to work through an agenda full of other agency business, including the finalization of the “500 Series” rulemaking that represents the first major regulatory change of the post-SB 181 era. But the next scheduled hearing is just three weeks away, and Wednesday is unlikely to be the last time the commission hears from Coloradans opposed to oil and gas drilling.

“Many of the people in this room today have been coming to meetings for ten years,” says Spiegel. “And what we’ve seen is that nothing changes. So we have to try something different, because our communities are on the line, our air is on the line, and we know that the future of our planet is on the line. We’ve tried being polite, and now we’re committed to getting their attention.”

LNG trucks exist but what happens in a highway accident?

From an Article by Jon Hurdle, NJ Spotlight, June 3, 2019

Plans to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal at Gibbstown in Greenwich Township, Gloucester County have not been fully disclosed to the public by regulatory agencies or by the developer of the site on the Delaware River in South Jersey, an environmental group says.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network accused the developer, Delaware River Partners, and several regulators of not doing enough to keep the public informed of the plan to build the terminal that would transfer super-cooled natural gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale via trucks to ocean-going tankers.

Although documents from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Greenwich Township show that the LNG plan has in fact received some disclosure, Delaware Riverkeeper says the project has been mostly kept hidden from the public despite concerns that LNG is potentially explosive, and that the terminal would represent an expansion of fossil-fuel infrastructure amid global efforts to curb carbon emissions.

Calling the matter “a deliberate coverup,” DRN accused the agencies and the company of trying to avoid public criticism by keeping the plans quiet.

“There would be no reason not to disclose this critical body of information other than to evade a full and fair review by agencies and the public,” the group said in a letter to environmental officials in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and other regulators.

Multi-use marine terminal

DRN said it has since 2016 been monitoring a plan to build a multi-use marine terminal called Gibbstown Logistics Center on a former DuPont site but only learned of a proposal to add the LNG terminal after “conversations” with agency staff.

“At no time throughout Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s participation in the public review of this project was the export of LNG from the facility ever discussed,” DRN told the agencies.

It urged the DRBC to cancel a June 6 hearing scheduled to discuss the addition of a dock including two deep-water berths at the Gibbstown facility, and said the agency had not mentioned LNG exports in any of its public documents relating to the hearing.

DRBC, an interstate regulator of water quality in the river basin, said the LNG plan had not been included in a permit application from Delaware River Partners (DRP) but that the regulator has no plans to cancel the hearing.

“If DRP had included LNG export in its project description in its application to the commission … DRBC would have included that description in both of the draft dockets and related public notices,” said Kate Schmidt, a spokeswoman for the agency.

‘Accepted at face value’

In December 2017, DRBC approved the company’s application for a multi-use marine terminal that would include “bulk liquids and gases handling” and “accepted that at face value,” Schmidt wrote in an email.

The United States began exporting liquefied natural gas in early 2016 in response to a surge in domestic production caused by hydraulic fracking of shale reserves. Most export terminals are on the Gulf Coast but they also include one at Cove Point in Maryland.

LNG exports from abundant U.S. gas reserves such as those in Pennsylvania are being touted by the Trump administration as a way of promoting U.S. notions of freedom around the world.

Last week, the U.S. Under Secretary of Energy, Mark W. Menezes, called LNG “freedom gas” when announcing plans for a new export terminal in Texas. “Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy,” Menezes said in an Energy Department press release.

Accused of trying ‘to hide the ball’

For the planned Gibbstown facility, Delaware River Partners is talking to potential customers who are interested in “transloading a variety of energy related liquids, potentially including liquefied natural gas,” said Liz Thomas, a spokeswoman. She said the company has notified all relevant permitting agencies of its plans.

One of the agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, issued a public notice on April 4 saying the site would be used to handle a “multitude” of products including LNG, which would be brought in by truck or rail and then loaded onto ships. Steve Rochette, a spokesman for the Corps’ Philadelphia office, said the notice was sent to DRN and other environmental groups.

But Maya van Rossum, head of Delaware Riverkeeper, said the Corps’ brief mention of LNG doesn’t excuse it of failing to publicly and thoroughly investigate the proposal. “The Army Corps is among the parties involved who sought to hide the ball through lack of information and clear and obvious obfuscation,” she said.

Van Rossum said the Corps had not disclosed plans for LNG in its response to Freedom of Information Act filings by DRN, and its staff had not told DRN anything about the LNG part of the Gibbstown plan.

LNG would be trucked to Gibbstown

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection did not respond to questions on whether it had approved the terminal as part of the Gibbstown project or whether the developer had disclosed a plan to transfer LNG, but cited a letter from the company to Greenwich Township officials, saying that the terminal’s uses would include the transfer of LNG.

“This marine terminal is planned to include uses such as an automobile import and processing facility, a bulk liquids storage and handling facility for the transfer of liquefied natural gas and other materials, as well as perishables and bulk cargo handling and logistics,” the letter said.

If implemented, the Pennsylvania gas would be liquefied at a new plant in Bradford County, Pa., and then trucked to Gibbstown, according to a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission by New Fortress Energy, developer of the liquefaction plant. The $800 million plant would be able to produce 3-4 million gallons a day of LNG.

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

See Also: U.S. FERC approves two new LNG export terminals in Texas and Louisiana — Reuters News Service, April 18, 2019

(Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved construction of two proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, Tellurian Inc’s Driftwood in Louisiana and Sempra Energy’s Port Arthur in Texas.

See the house? From WVSORO.org

.
.
.
Comprehensive Report by Evan Hansen, Lara Cushing, Meghan Betcher, Christian Thomas

Downstream Strategies, 911 Greenbag Road, Morgantown, WV 26508

Publication Date: August 15, 2017

Executive Summary

In the past decade, natural gas drilling and extraction from the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia has grown rapidly. The technique of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has allowed for the extraction of gas from areas that were previously uneconomic. Further, in comparison with conventional gas wells, the impacts of fracking are also potentially much greater. Fracking requires the construction of large wellpads—often home to multiple wells drilled over a few years—and produces large amounts of solid and liquid waste containing toxic chemicals. In recent years, the public health and medical communities have expressed concerns about environmental issues and the potential for adverse human health impacts in communities located near fracking activities.

In this study, we explore whether gas production has become more common near places essential for everyday life in West Virginia, increasing the potential for human exposure to contaminants associated with drilling and natural gas extraction. First, we map and measure the footprint of Marcellus Shale gas development in West Virginia between 2007 and 2014 to evaluate the extent to which drilling has expanded near sensitive land uses such as homes and schools. Most prior studies of the growth of unconventional gas extraction have utilized point location information from permit data rather than polygons. Our approach using aerial imagery more accurately reflects the actual timing and aerial extent of wellpad development. Second, we characterize the toxicity of a set of chemicals used to frack wells near sensitive populations to better understand the potential for harmful exposures.

Marcellus Shale development in West Virginia

The footprint of gas extraction in West Virginia’s Marcellus Shale has grown substantially. The average size of wellpads grew from 1.6 to 2.4 acres between 2007 and 2014, and the average size of wastewater impoundments—structures for storing liquid waste—grew from 0.1 to 1.3 acres. The total land area covered by wellpads and impoundments grew from 12 to 1,286 acres. Compared with other West Virginia counties, wellpads occupy the most land in Marshall, Wetzel, and Doddridge counties.

Proximity of Marcellus Shale development to sensitive areas

Over time, an increasing amount of Marcellus Shale fracking-related infrastructure has been located near sensitive areas, including homes, schools, public drinking water intakes, public lands, and health care facilities.

• • Homes. 7,235 homes were located within one-half mile of at least one wellpad in 2014. West Virginia State Code specifies a setback distance of 625 feet between the center of wellpads and homes; however, homeowners may waive this setback, and several homes are located closer than this distance to wellpads.
• • Schools. In 2007, the closest wellpad was 0.9 miles from a school. By 2014, seven schools had at least one wellpad within one-half mile, 36 schools had at least one wellpad within one mile, and six schools had two or more wellpads within one mile. West Virginia State Code does not specify a setback distance for construction of wellpads near schools, nor does it specify setback distances for public lands or health care facilities.
• • Public drinking water intakes. West Virginia State Code specifies that wellpads must be more than 1,000 feet from a public drinking water intake; however, the Code does not restrict the construction of wellpads within drinking water protection areas such as zones of critical concern or zones of peripheral concern. In 2014, 30 wellpads and seven impoundments were located within zones of critical concern, and 532 wellpads and 17 impoundments were located within zones of peripheral concern.
• • Public lands. In 2007, no wellpads or impoundments existed within two miles of public land boundaries. By 2014, 21 wellpads and five impoundments had been developed within this distance of public lands.
• • Health care facilities. In 2007, only three wellpads and three impoundments were located within two miles of a health care facility; by 2014, 81 wellpads and 21 impoundments were located less than two miles from at least one health care facility.

Chemicals used at fracking sites in close proximity to sensitive sites

Our ability to characterize the potential health threats posed by fracking in West Virginia is limited by the lack of disclosure and monitoring related to the chemicals used at fracking sites, as well as limited data on the health effects of many of the chemicals being used. Nevertheless, a systematic, screening-level evaluation of the toxicity of chemicals self-reported to the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry revealed that several hazardous substances have been used in West Virginia to frack wells near schools and within zones of critical concern for surface public drinking water intakes.

• • Schools. Thirty percent of wellpads located within one kilometer of a school reported their chemical usage to the FracFocus database, and 59 different chemicals were used between July 2013 and March 2016. Twenty percent of these 59 chemicals have been identified as possible reproductive and/or developmental toxicants, and one has been identified as a probable human carcinogen.
• • Public drinking water intakes. Twenty percent of the 177 wellpads located within zones of critical concern for drinking water supplies reported their chemical usage to the FracFocus database, and 98 different chemicals were used between May 2013 and March 2016. Nineteen percent of these chemicals could be identified as possible reproductive and/or developmental toxicants, and two are probable or likely human carcinogens.

Conclusion

As the extent of fracking has grown since 2007, fracking infrastructure—wellpads and impoundments—has encroached on places essential for everyday life in West Virginia. Roughly one-fifth of the chemicals being used to frack Marcellus Shale wells close to schools and public drinking water intakes are possible reproductive and/or developmental toxicants or human carcinogens. Most operators are not voluntarily disclosing the chemicals they use, and toxicity information is unavailable for many of the chemicals used at fracking sites, limiting our ability to evaluate the potential health threats posed by fracking in the area.

West Virginia State Code requires setbacks to keep wellpads from being developed too close to homes and public drinking water intakes. However, the other types of sensitive areas assessed in this report are not protected from nearby Marcellus Shale development. Setback distances for schools, health care facilities, and public lands—and restrictions in zones of critical concern and zones of peripheral concern above drinking water intakes—would help protect vulnerable populations and recreational opportunities as fracking development continues.

Source: http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/frackfinder_8-14-17_final.pdf

No Pipeline(s) thru our National Forests

Update from Greenbrier River Watershed Association, March 7, 2016

Upcoming meetings you may want to attend:

Dominion Power ACP Public meetings www.dom.com (Corporate-What We Do- Atlantic Coast Pipeline-Open Houses and Meetings)

Augusta County –Tuesday, March 8– Churchville Elementary School 5-7:30 p.m.

Bath County–Wednesday, March 9– Bath County High School 5-7:30 p.m.

Pocahontas County–Thursday, March 10 — Snowshoe Mountain Lodge Ballroom 5-7:30 p.m.

March 15– WV DEP meeting to discuss Mountain Valley  Pipeline Air Quality Permit at Meadow Bridge Fire Station, 8958 Sewell Creek Road 6-8 p.m. See the draft permit at:

www.dep.wv.gov/daq/Pages/NSRPermitsforReview.aspx

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

Forest Service Seeks Comments on Authorizing Surveys for the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline in the Monongahela National Forest

(March 2, 2016) Elkins, WV– The Forest Service is seeking comments on whether to allow surveys on a 5.4-mile segment of the Monongahela National Forest for the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline in Pocahontas County, WV. Proposed environmental surveys include surveying wetlands, water, soil, and suitable habitat for sensitive species, including federally listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. Surveys will also record and document cultural resources and invasive species. Surveys would likely also include soils, geology, recreation/scenery, and any other surveys deemed necessary for evaluation of the pipeline proposal. The Forest Service will use public comments and an environmental review to decide whether to issue a temporary (12 month) special use permit for the environmental and cultural resource surveys in the Monongahela National Forest. Comments are being accepted through Monday, March 21, 2016.

Please email comments to comments-eastern-monongahela-marlinton@fs.fed.us

>>>>>>>>>>>

Newest Interactive Map for Atlantic Coast Pipeline:

The Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition has published an online interactive map depicting environmental risks and sensitivities associated with the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The purpose of the ACP-EMS is to organize and provide access to environmental information related to ACP permitting and oversight. The geographic focus of the ACP-EMS includes approximately 200 miles of the western mountainous and upland section of the proposed pipeline.

Current information layers include: Alternate pipeline corridors, Construction access roads, Public conservation lands, Corridor slope steepness, Corridor erosion potential, Trout streams, Surficial karst distribution, Virginia map-documented sinkholes, Potential horizontal drilling locations and staging areas, Cow Knob salamander impact corridor, Red spruce ecosystem restoration areas, more to come . . .

The ACP-EMS is a work in progress undertaken by the Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition and partner organizations. We invite suggestions and collaboration.

Please go to www.pipelineupdate.org then to get maps

>>>>>>>>>>>

Recent meetings covered:

Pocahontas County Commission meeting with Dominion:

www.pocahontastimes.com/crowd-gathers-for-dominion-presentation/

ABRA and Appalmad meeting with concerned citizens near Snowshoe:

www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/595913/Pipeline-s-new-route-a-concern.html?nav=5014

>>>>>>>>>>>

West Virginia Legislative News Updates —

Find contact information at www.legis.state.wv.us

For up-to-the-minute news from the legislature and beyond, click on the links of our friends at WVEC and WVCAG newsletters below. They usually come out on Fridays. Kudos to the stalwart individuals who try to work with our legislators to inform them about our issues. They deserve our gratitude and support!

West Virginia E- Council Legislative Updates

West Virginia Citizen Action Group Updates

Jackson's Mill in Lewis County, WV

Central WV Meeting Plans Concerted Action on Broad Issues

Press Release Dated: December 18, 2015

Jackson’s Mill, WV — West Virginians facing crucial quality of life issues with the onslaught of the deep shale oil and gas industry are banding together for the sake of their communities.

On December 15, more than 40 people representing 30 citizen groups from across West Virginia, as well as one Virginia group, gathered to meet one another and to discuss each group’s work surrounding deep shale oil and gas issues.

The various groups and coalitions work to address one or more of the detrimental impacts of oil and gas production on communities, human health and the environment that arise from activities associated with deep shale hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”

Their concerns include property rights, air, water and noise pollution, compressors stations, water withdrawal from our state’s streams and rivers, pipelines, wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal and waste transportation, as well as public policy proposals looming when the West Virginia Legislature begins its regular legislative session this January 2016.

Attendees included representatives of community action groups, based in areas where the rural way of life and the environment are directly impacted by fracking/gas, as well as members of statewide organizations such as the West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization, West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, West Virginia Rivers Coalition and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. Also in attendance were leaders from the faith community, scientists and public policy/economic professionals.

“Monroe County citizens are broadly mobilized to focus on blocking the development of frack gas infrastructures,” said Monroe County resident Laurie Ardison, who is with Preserve Monroe and POWHR, Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights, which is an interstate coalition group working to protect the water, local ecology, heritage, land rights and human rights of individuals, communities and regions from harms caused by the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructures.

“We have an opportunity to develop clean jobs with renewables and cheaper energy efficiency programs. Locking us into fossil fuels for the future is going to pull us away from forward thinking economic development,” said April Keating with the Mountain Lakes Preservation Alliance.

“Clearly, we can increase our capacity and impact when we work together towards common goals,” said Janet Keating, the principal organizer of the meeting and executive director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, based in Huntington.

“Coming together from across the state working on various issues related to shale gas development, we learned common concerns connect us,” said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. “We see a need to work together to set the best way forward for a healthy environment and economic future for our state.”

“There are negative health consequences for the people who live near fracking sites. It is time for policy makers and the industry to recognize that people who live next to natural gas facilities are paying a high price,” said Conni Gratop Lewis of the WV Environmental Council.

Another attendee stated, “The meeting was an energizing experience for me. I had been feeling a bit burned out lately, but now I feel like we may have a chance of beating this assault.”

“From pipelines cutting through the highland mountains to waste inundating the lowland fields and wetlands, the recent boom of oil and gas development is as harmful to many as it is economically beneficial to a few,” said Cindy Rank of the WV Highlands Conservancy. “As the region celebrates any short-term economic gains, we must also fight to preserve the air we breathe, the water we rely on, the forests we enjoy, and the health of those who live near the drilling and production operations.”

Contacts:

>>> Janet Keating, OVEC, 304-522-0246 or janet@ohvec.org

>>> Cindy Rank, WV Highlands Conservancy, 304-924-5802, clrank2@gmail.com

>>> Elise Keaton, Greenbrier River Watershed Association, 304-207-1150, elise@greenbrier.org

>>> Laurie Ardison, Preserve Monroe and POWHR, 304-646-8339, ikeandash@yahoo.com

>>> April Keating, Mountain Lakes Preservation Alliance, 304-642-9436, apkeating@hotmail.com