This video shows Texas Black Angus cattle drinking from drilling sludge pits at two different drilling sites in Denton County. I have witnessed cattle drinking from sludge pits regularly over the past few years.
Unlike most other states, Texas law does not require that sludge pits be lined or fenced, but it does require the pits be "cleaned up" within 120 days after completion of the well.
There are many sludge pits in Texas that never get cleaned up. These are a threat to wildlife, livestock, soil and our drinking water.
See Bluedaze by Sharon Davis (TXSharon)
The Mayor of tiny Dish, Texas, north of Fort Worth, continues to stir up controversy with his claims of air pollution from oil and gas activities causing health concerns in his community. The mayor appeared at the RRC's January 12 open hearing. You can watch his testimony here (go to item 17 on the agenda).
The mayor's appearance was prompted by an item placed on the agenda by Commissioner Michael Williams, which in turn had been prompted by a letter sent to the Commissioners by State Rep. Ron Burnam. Rep. Burnam's letter asked the RRC to place a moratorium on permits for wells in the Barnett Shale around Fort Worth until the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has finished its investigation of air quality in the area.
In response, Commissioner Williams proposed that the Commissioners write a letter to the Texas Attorney General asking for a formal opinion whether the RRC has authority to issue such a moratorium. (Rep. Burnam has also asked the City of Fort Worth to issue a similar moratorium on well permits in the city limits.) I have written about the controversy concerning the town of Dish in a previous post.
John McFarland is a shareholder at Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody in Austin Texas specializing in representation of landowners and mineral owners in oil and gas matters in Texas.
Earthjustice Fast Facts
Did you know? We've provided legal representation at no cost to more than 700 clients, from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Wilderness Society to community-based coalitions. Here are some more facts about us:
- Founded in 1971 as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
- Name changed to Earthjustice in 1997
- Headquartered in Oakland, CA
- Number of employees: ~150
- President: Trip Van Noppen
Gas drilling companies such as Halliburton say the gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is safe, but opponents contend it pollutes groundwater with dangerous substances.
Now, new evidence has emerged possibly linking natural gas drilling to groundwater contamination. ProPublica journalist Abrahm Lustgarten reports federal officials in Wyoming have found that at least three water wells contain chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
This paper reviews the history of litigation concerning hydraulic fracturing.
LEAF Petitions EPA to Withdraw Primacy—1994
In 1994, an organization known as Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (hereinafter referred to as “LEAF”) petitioned EPA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of the Alabama UIC program.
LEAF alleged that the Alabama program was deficient because it did not regulate hydraulic fracturing activities associated with coalbed methane gas production and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (hereinafter referred to as “SDWA”).
LEAF further alleged that the SDWA required regulation under federal guidelines over hydraulic fracturing operations. In 1995, EPA denied the petition because it determined that hydraulic fracturing did not fall within the definition of "underground injection" under the SDWA.
EPA had concluded that methane gas production wells, which are also used for hydraulic fracturing of the coalbeds, are not required to be regulated under the SDWA because the principal function of these wells is not the underground emplacement of fluids; their principal function is to produce coalbed methane gas.
Elizabeth Larkin, Cortland County Clerk. You can search Land Records at the Cortland County Clerk's Office online and read the full-text of lease documents and see if your neighbors have already signed gas leases. Click "Search Land Records".
On the next page, just click "Log In", you do not need a password. On the next page, click "I accept". On the next page, uncheck "Ignore party type when search for name"; change the dates if you wish, choose "Document Type: Lease" from the drop-down menu.
Next to the field that says "Town", use the pull-down menu to pull down your town and then click the search button at the top right of the page. You can also try variations.
About the Landman Report Card
A landman is an agent that represents oil & gas companies in negotiations with landowners: their job is to get the best terms for the company. This interaction is perhaps one of the most important elements of the oil and gas exploration and extraction process.
Though many landmen sign onto and abide by codes of ethics, some landowners have accounts of landman dishonesty and misbehavior. Landowners are particularly vulnerable to misinformation at this moment as it is often the first time that they make contact with the oil and gas industry. The Landman Report Card was started to assist landowners in this tricky process by allowing landowners to educate and assist each other.
This site provides tools to learn about landmen and their companies through reading reviews submitted by users. It also allows users to submit their own report cards, contact other users and use the site as their own private diary of interactions with this industry.
The Landman Report Card is produced by the ExtrAct group at MIT in collaboration with citizens' alliances in Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio and West Virginia as well as the Oil and Gas Accountability Project. ExtrACT is funded by MIT's Center for Future Civic Media, a research group dedicated to developing novel web-based technologies for citizen journalism.
To get in touch with the ExtrAct team, email us at extract@media.mit.edu.
Posted on January 15, 2010 by William A. Ruskin.
"Is DEC Ill-Equipped to Oversee Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Drilling?"
"According to a report issued by Cornell Law School, the State of New York’s blueprint for Marcellus Shale development proposes 187 new regulatory activities necessary for the oversight of natural gas drilling, but the blueprint does not explain how DEC will carry out these activities."
Marcellus-Shale.us. 2019-2010. Website. Pennsylvania.
Key paragraphs from the
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
Includes photographs of fracking trucks.
See press release, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): EPA Announces “Eyes on Drilling” Tipline.
"A faction of Northeast Ohio residents and lawmakers fighting for stricter regulations on oil and gas well drilling are getting outmuscled in the Ohio Senate and are turning their attention to the House. The state's powerful oil and gas industry, Gov. Ted Strickland's administration and lawmakers from outside greater Cleveland have teamed up to produce a set of rules its critics say don't do enough to protect homeowners living near wells."
Penn State Dickinson School of Law. 2009.
Natural Gas Exploration--Online Resources--Legal Blogs--Select Penn State Publications--Natural Gas Leasing Information--General Information Relating to Natural Gas Industry--Publications Relating Specifically to Barnett Shale.
"Answers to questions frequently asked by landowners about oil and gas leases and drilling." Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection.
For more information, visit DEP’s Web site at Keyword: “Oil and Gas.”
Pennsylvania lawsuit says drilling polluted water
A Pennsylvania landowner is suing an energy company for polluting his soil and water in an attempt to link a natural gas drilling technique with environmental contamination.
George Zimmermann, the owner of 480 acres in Washington County, southwest Pennsylvania, says Atlas Energy Inc. ruined his land with toxic chemicals used in or released there by hydraulic fracturing.
(Editing by Mark Egan and Philip Barbara)
Get an in-depth pollution report for your county, covering air, water, chemicals, and more. Enter your zip code for local information.
Take Action: Oppose EPA's efforts to weaken pollution reporting
 |
Who are the top polluters in the U.S.? |
We think American citizens have a right to know what toxic chemicals are being released into their communities. But the EPA recently proposed to limit the information that companies are required to disclose about the hazardous chemicals they release into our environment.
By reducing the reporting requirements of its Toxics Release Inventory program, the EPA would take away an important tool for protecting public health and reducing industrial pollution.
Supported by Green Media Toolshed.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that environmentalists' lacked standing to challenge a Forest Service regulation limiting public involvement in timber sales decisions. Priscilla Summers v. Earth Island Institute, et al.,__U.S.__(No. 07-463, March 3, 2009).
The decision found that respondents’ argument that they have standing because they suffered procedural injuryi.e., they have been denied the ability to file comments on some Forest Service actions—fails because such a deprivation without some concrete interest affected thereby is insufficient to create Article III standing.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated "Accepting an intention to visit the National Forests as adequate to confer standing to challenge any Government action affecting any portion of those forests would be tantamount to eliminating the requirement of concrete, particularized injury in fact."
The following is a link to the Court's opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-463.pdf
The mission of the Red Lodge Clearinghouse is to support, connect and inform the partners of collaborative efforts and others addressing natural resource challenges in their community.
This blog features a page on Oil and Gas Resource Development that has many links to primary legal documents. It is based in the U.S. Western States.
Here is a link to their Staff listing:
"New York state environmental officials announced Friday that they would impose far stricter regulations for a new type of natural gas drilling in the state’s only two unfiltered water supplies, making it highly unlikely that any drilling will be done in the Catskills watershed that supplies drinking water to New York City...
...Although they did not impose an outright ban, state officials said that any natural gas company would have to conduct a separate environmental impact review for every well it proposed to drill in either watershed. In other areas, companies would face a far less cumbersome permit process that would rely on the state’s own environmental assessment of where drilling can be allowed...
...With a major controversy surrounding the proposed drilling out of the way, state officials said that they expected to release their final regulations on hydraulic fracturing by the end of the year after considering more than 14,000 public comments.
While it stirred deep opposition in New York City and nearby counties, the drilling drew substantial support from many upstate residents who argued that the benefits would far outweigh any risks given the weakness of the economy.
The conservation department’s commissioner, Pete Grannis, said that landowners’ property rights had weighed heavily in the decision not to issue a ban on drilling in the two watersheds. He said that about 70 percent of watershed property is privately owned and that a ban would have undoubtedly brought on lawsuits from owners deprived of lucrative leasing deals with gas companies.
“At the end of the day, an outright ban risks very substantial litigation,” he said.
Instead, the department decided to add more scrutiny to any potential application to drill in the two areas, he said.
But while the well-by-well environmental reviews will be a deterrent to the drilling, environmental groups were not claiming victory. Kate Sinding, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said nothing but a ban would ensure that gas companies do not exploit the watersheds in the future.
“If they get into the shale and find it productive, they’re going to knock on the door of the watershed,” she said. “This announcement puts off for another day a decision that could be made today"...
...Jim Smith, a spokesman for the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, called the state’s regulatory stance “excessive and unnecessary.”
See: Eileen Millett, Toxic Tort Litigation Blog.
The challenge for attorneys and for courts will arise as communities grapple with:
● Managing the use of water, water withdrawals, what authority controls and who regulates;
● Impacts if any on waterbodies and aquatic life in affected water bodies accepting chemical fluids of varying composition;
● Adequacy and availability of treatment and pre treatment facilities.
See: Dave Cohen. Energy Bulletin. "Shale Gas Shenanigans" Mar 29 2010.
See:
...Deborah Goldberg, an attorney with Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, said the final SGEIS must include substantial changes to account for the cumulative effect of drilling thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of Marcellus wells in New York. If not, the firm will help spearhead a legal challenge, most likely in state Supreme Court in Albany.
That would involve filing an Article 78 Proceeding challenging the DEC's adherence to the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA MOA). 2003. A Memorandum of Agreement Between The United States Environmental Protection Agency and BJ Services Company, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and Schlumberger Technology Corporation: Elimination of Diesel Fuel in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Injected into Underground Sources of Drinking Water During Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Wells, Dec. 12, 2003.
"While the Companies do not necessarily agree that hydraulic fracturing fluids using diesel fuel endanger USDWs when they are injected into CBM production wells, the Companies are prepared to enter into this agreement in response to EPA’s concerns and to reduce potential risks to the environment." See Drilling Around the Law for a follow-up on this voluntary agreement. According to the Environmental Working Group's report, "This promise, however, applied to only coalbed methane wells -- a small portion of natural gas and oil wells drilled – and only to those drilled directly into underground sources of drinking water."
