Sunday, April 11, 2010

Split Estate and M.I.T.'s Landman Report Card Offer Special Competition

Split Estate is teaming up with Landman Report Card, a project of MIT's Center for Future Civic Media, to present a special competition.

Landman Report Card (LRC) is giving away free Split Estate screening packages to the first three communities that submit 10 reports to the LRC website. LRC has already partnered with Red Rock Pictures to organize recent screenings in Ohio, Texas and Virginia.

ABOUT
Landman Report Card (LRC) is a web resource that helps people share and explore reports about interactions with landmen and the gas companies they represent. Those new to the gas drilling issue can use LRC to read about the experiences of others and connect with knowledgeable people in their communities, while those who have gone through the process of negotiating a lease can share their experiences to hold companies and landmen publicly accountable.

Community groups can use the site to monitor activity in their area, share documents, find other groups in similar situations around the country, and build up a detailed profile of activity in their neighborhoods.

THE PRIZE
Winners will receive a free copy of the community-screening edition of Split Estate on DVD. In addition, LRC will reimburse the three winning communities up to $100 towards the cost of planning a screening event.


HOW TO PARTICIPATE
Ask members of your community to submit report cards at LRC. All participants must include a quick sentence about their affiliation in the description section of their report card. After a group has submitted 10 reviews, the representative responsible for organizing the screening should send an email to extract@media.mit.edu to alert the LRC team, which will verify that criteria have been met.

ELIGIBILITY
Individuals, citizen groups and NGOs are welcomed to apply. National organizations are not eligible for participation, but local chapters of national organizations are. Each individual is encouraged to submit as many report cards as they can — one for each landman or company they have dealt with. However, only two reports per individual will count towards the final group total. If you have questions, please email Christina Xu at ckx@media.mit.edu.
Visit the Split Estate website

Friday, April 9, 2010

Helena Chemical Company wins case against community activist

Normally I try not to post the same things as Drilling Santa Fe because I figure a lot of people read both and it's nice to get a variety of news. Today's news from the New Mexico Independent is too bad not to post though. The impacts of this decision could have far reaching consequences that go way beyond Helena Chemical and Arturo Uribe. Obviously, since the company was investigated and fined for violations, Mr. Uribe was not making up stories.
For some general information about SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation), click here.

Uribe ordered to pay $75k in punitive damages
By Laura Paskus 4/9/10 12:25 PM

Wednesday night, a jury found a southern New Mexico activist guilty of defamation and harassment against a chemical company.

Now, Arturo Uribe, a 40-year old social worker, owes the Tennessee-based Helena Chemical Company $2 in damages and $75,000 in punitive damages.

“The most important thing is we wanted the lies to stop—the amount of money was not something that was important to Helena—and we wanted to set the record straight in a forum where proof and evidence matter,” Robert Soza, Jr., Helena’s attorney told The Independent. “Though, I think that the money does send a message to Mr. Uribe and others who think that defamation is way of getting their point across: It’s not going to be permissible. It’s unlawful.”

In December 2008, Helena Chemical Company sued Uribe in New Mexico’s Third Judicial District Court in Las Cruces, saying he had repeatedly defamed Helena in public statements. According to the company, Uribe had harassed employees at the Mesquite branch and defamed the company via six individual slides within various presentations at community meetings, and when he told a television reporter: “We’re gonna allow companies and industry to contaminate us and knowingly do it and do nothing about it? I’m insulted; I’m hurt more than anything.”

The lawsuit was filed to silence an outspoken activist, Uribe’s attorney says

Two months prior to Helena’s suit against him, Uribe and 22 community members had filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that the chemical company’s emissions were sickening local children. Health problems include chronic respiratory infections, asthma, severe chronic bronchitis and nosebleeds.

According to Uribe’s attorney, Linda Thomas, Helena’s suit against Uribe was filed to silence the activist. Uribe had repeatedly reported information to the New Mexico Environment Department. In turn, she said, the department had investigated the facility, found violations and levied fines against Helena. “To us, this was a clear, malicious abuse of process,” she said. “They had filed the suit to shut him up.”

Thomas also said she was worried about how the jury’s decision will affect people living in Mesquite: “They’re not going to go back to their community and feel safe—they’re going to feel like they can’t speak out because they’re worried they’re going to be sued.” The case will also have nationwide implications, for activists on both sides of the political spectrum: “This decision is going to have a chilling effect on everyone in the country, on anyone who might want to stand up against polluters in their community, or meet with other community members to talk about concerns.”

Company had been hit with a $233,777 fine for not complying with air quality regulations

Just south of Las Cruces, the town of Mesquite doesn’t merit much notice—even from those who might meander toward El Paso along back roads rather than zipping down Interstate-10. Tallied during the 2000 Census, the population was almost 95 percent Hispanic or Latino—and until 2004, the chemical company had escaped attention from the state’s agency in charge of environmental safety.

That is, until residents such as Uribe—along with state Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, Sen. Cynthia Nava, D-Las Cruces, and Doña Ana County commissioner Oscar Butler—complained to the New Mexico Environment Department about Helena’s impacts on the community.

In early 2004, NMED first inspected Helena’s facility, where chemical fertilizers are received in bulk, then mixed and sold to local farmers. Later that same year, the state issued a Notice of Violation against Helena—for operating its plant without an air quality permit.

Under state law, the company had to install wells that monitor chemicals in the groundwater, submit what is called an “abatement plan”—a plan to investigate and contain groundwater pollution—and comply with investigations into air and occupational health and safety issues.

The state also hit Helena with a $233,777 civil penalty for not complying with New Mexico’s air quality laws and regulations. At that time, in June 2005, the department issued a press release quoting deputy secretary Derrith Watchman-Moore saying, “Since our first inspection a year and a half ago, we have consistently and patiently made every attempt to work with them and get them into compliance. Our patience is now at an end. This order is a clear message to Helena to immediately comply with New Mexico’s environmental laws and become a good neighbor to the people of Mesquite.”

But problems persisted: In September, 2006, the company failed to report a 500-gallon spill of liquid fertilizer. State law mandates that spills be called in within 24 hours. Helena reported the spill 12 days afterwards—and subsequently paid a $30,000 fine.

The following year, in November, 2007, NMED issued another notice, citing 15 violations of the Mesquite facility’s air quality permit. In the end, Helena and the state reached a settlement agreement over ten of the violations, and the company agreed to pay $208,331 in fines. More>>>

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Broad Scope of EPA’s Fracturing Study Raises Ire of Gas Industry

by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - April 7, 2010 7:09 am EDT

A federal study of hydraulic fracturing set to begin this spring is expected to provide the most expansive look yet at how the natural gas drilling process can affect drinking water supplies, according to interviews with EPA officials and a set of documents outlining the scope of the project. The research will take a substantial step beyond previous studies and focus on how a broad range of ancillary activity – not just the act of injecting fluids under pressure – may affect drinking water quality.

The oil and gas industry strongly opposes this new approach. The agency’s intended research "goes well beyond relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water," said Lee Fuller, vice president of government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America in comments he submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The "lifecycle" approach will allow the agency to take into account hundreds of reports of water contamination in gas drilling fields across the country. Although the agency hasn’t settled on the exact details, researchers could examine both underground and surface water supplies, gas well construction errors, liquid waste disposal issues and chemical storage plans as part of its assessment.

The EPA begins public hearings today in Washington to nail down the scope of the study.

Plans for the study have attracted international attention and have been the focus of intense debate among lawmakers and the oil and gas industry. The findings could affect Congress’ decision whether to repeal an exemption that shields the fracturing process from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The EPA is undertaking the study in response to a wave of reports of water contamination in drilling areas across the country and a Congressional mandate issued in an appropriations bill last fall. The agency had previously examined hydraulic fracturing in a 2004 study that was limited in scope and was widely criticized.

"When we did the 2004 study we were looking particularly for potential for impacts from hydraulic fracturing fluid underground to underground sources of drinking water," said Cynthia Dougherty, the EPA’s director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. "So it was a much narrower focus."

For the latest study, the EPA sent its scoping document to its Science Advisory Board asking for the group’s input in designing the fracturing study. In the document, the EPA explained that information gained from looking at the impact from the start to the end of the process, called a lifecycle assessment "can help policymakers understand and make decisions about the breadth of issues related to hydraulic fracturing, including cross-media risks and the relationship to the entire natural gas production cycle."

In past interviews with ProPublica, Fuller has explained that, in his view, hydraulic fracturing shouldn’t be blamed for any contamination unless the process of injecting fracturing fluids underground under pressure was "the sole" cause of contamination. If contamination seeped through cracks in a gas well’s protective casing under pressure of the fracturing process, for example, he wouldn’t attribute it to fracturing because the cracks may have existed before the fracturing process began and would be a well construction problem, not a fracturing problem.

Fuller’s definition of fracturing-related contamination helps explain the oil and gas industry’s steadfast claim that that there is not a single case in which hydraulic fracturing has been proven to have contaminated drinking water supplies.

An 18-month investigation by ProPublica, however, has shown more than 1,000 cases in which various aspects of the fracturing lifecycle have affected water supplies, including spills of fracturing fluid waste, cracking of underground cement and well casings meant to enclose the fracturing process, and methane gas traveling large distances underground through faults and fractures.

In planning its study, the EPA has made clear that for its purposes fracturing may play a role in many aspects of the drilling process and in many different environmental risks. The study could examine how well-construction activities have the potential to impact water, what specific materials or design practices would make a well suitable for fracturing, and what are the most effective methods for measuring well integrity. More>>>

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Incidents of water contamination with suspected links to hydraulic fracturing

Amy Mall senior policy analyst for the National Resources Defense Council, is creating a list of drinking water contamination related to hydraulic fracturing. It is going to be a useful resource for those of us who often deal with people who like to use the quote "there has never been one documented instance of drinking water contamination attributed to the New Mexico oil and gas industry." Okay, so it's not an exact quote, but people familiar with our former oil and gas association president, Bob Gallagher, can probably still hear it ringing in their ears.
Anyone who is aware of "other incidents of contamination" is encouraged to contact Amy Mall so that it can be posted on her blog.
To read the post, click here.

Monday, April 5, 2010

[Pennsylvania] State lawmakers look to regulate gas drilling

By Elizabeth Skrapits (Staff Writer)
Published: April 5, 2010

In response to growing concerns about the effects of natural gas drilling on water supplies and the environment, state lawmakers are proposing legislation to change the way the industry is regulated.

One proposal, which will be discussed at a public hearing this week, has the support of several local legislators and a newly formed local environmental group, while another piece is condemned by the group as likely to undermine state oversight of natural gas drilling.

State Rep. Camille "Bud" George, D-Houtzdale, Clearfield County, who is chairwoman of the Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, introduced House Bill 2213, the Land and Water Protection Act.

The proposed legislation would amend the state Oil and Gas Act to require state inspections of natural gas well sites during each drilling phase; extend the presumed liability of a natural gas well for polluting a water supply from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet around the well site; require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" and update bonding requirements to cover costs of closing down a natural gas well and restoring the land.

The Environmental Resources and Energy Committee will hold a hearing on the bill - and on ways to mitigate environmental risks associated with Marcellus Shale drilling - on Wednesday from 1 to 3 p.m. in the Kingston Township municipal building, 180 E. Center St. State Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, a co-sponsor of the bill, will be moderator.

People who will give testimony include Jeff Schmidt, senior director of the area Sierra Club chapter; Dr. Gere Reisinger of Wyoming County, whose farm was affected by natural gas drilling; and Victoria Switzer of Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, whose water supply was contaminated by nearby gas drilling.

Also slated to speak is Dr. Thomas Jiunta of Lehman Township, founder of the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, formerly known as Luzerne County Citizens for Clean Water.

A controversial aspect of natural gas drilling is the fracking process, which involves blasting millions of gallons of chemical-treated fresh water deep underground to fracture the shale in order to release the gas.

Jiunta's group held a public information meeting last Wednesday in Dallas to highlight what they believe are the potential negative impacts of natural gas drilling, and to urge people to call on their state and federal lawmakers to impose regulations on the industry.

State Rep. Karen Boback, R-Harveys Lake, who attended the meeting, called HB 2213 "a piece of legislation you want to get your arms around."

Boback and state Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Lehman Township, who was also present at the meeting, pledged to work to address the concerns brought up by residents.

"I believe the inspection component is critical," Baker said. "That is the highest priority from my perspective, the water quality is the highest priority, and what we do with the discharge is another key component." More>>>

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Senators' support of drilling irks some environmentalists

While not surprising, it is still disappointing to see politics trump morality.


Senators' support of drilling irks some environmentalists Bingaman, Udall, two favorites among environmentalists, both praised Obama plan
Steve Terrell The New Mexican
Posted: Saturday, April 03, 2010 - 4/2/10

For years, both of New Mexico's U.S. senators have voted against lifting the decades-old moratorium on offshore drilling.

But this week, when Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the Obama administration's plan to open up part of the Atlantic coast and other areas to offshore drilling, both Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Tom Udall applauded the announcement.

"I commend Secretary Salazar for proposing a plan that makes available for leasing much of the potential offshore oil and gas resources that the federal government owns," Bingaman said. "I also commend him for indicating that additional studies will be undertaken before making a final decision on leasing in areas that might be environmentally sensitive."

Bingaman said the plan is "generally consistent" with the legislation his committee approved last year.

Udall released a statement saying the new plan has "clear guidelines for offshore oil and gas production," which "builds upon the Obama Administration's unparalleled support for renewable energy and increased fuel efficiency standards. For its part, Congress must monitor the development of offshore oil and gas closely to ensure that we remain responsible stewards of our environment for future generations."

Spokeswomen for both senators said this week there were specific features about previous offshore drilling measures that prompted the votes against them. More>>>

Officials Fear Ship Breaking Apart on Barrier Reef

A Chinese coal-carrying ship ran aground in a protected area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. .Sun Apr 4, 2010 03:20 AM ET | content provided by Associated Press .
The Chinese coal carrier Shen Neng 1

THE GIST:
•Shen Neng 1 ran aground late Saturday on Douglas Shoals east of the Great Keppel Island tourist resort, off the coast of Queensland.•The ship, well outside the shipping lane, hit the reef at full speed.•Patches of oil seen nearby, but there is no major loss of the 1,000 tons of oil on board.


A coal-carrying ship that ran aground and was leaking oil on Australia's Great Barrier Reef was in danger of breaking apart, officials said Sunday.

The Chinese coal carrier Shen Neng 1 ran aground late Saturday on Douglas Shoals, a favorite pristine haunt for recreational fishing east of the Great Keppel Island tourist resort. The shoals are in a protected part of the reef where shipping is restricted by environmental law off the coast of Queensland state in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Authorities fear an oil spill will damage the world's largest coral reef off northeast Australia, listed as a World Heritage site for its environmental value.

The ship hit the reef at full speed, nine miles (15 kilometers) outside the shipping lane, State Premier Anna Bligh said.

A police boat was standing by to remove the 23 crew if the ship broke apart and an evacuation was necessary, she said.

Patches of oil were seen near the stricken ship early Sunday, but Maritime Safety Queensland reported no major loss from the 1,000 tons (950 metric tons) of oil on board.

"We are now very worried we might see further oil discharged from this ship," Bligh told reporters.

Maritime Safety Queensland general manager Patrick Quirk said the vessel was badly damaged on its port side.

"At one stage last night, we thought the ship was close to breaking up," he told reporters. "We are still very concerned about the ship."

"It is in danger of actually breaking a number of its main structures and breaking into a number of parts," he added.

A salvage contract had been signed but the operation would be difficult and assessing the damage to the ship could take a week, Quirk said.

Bligh said she feared the salvage operation could spill more oil, which could reach the mainland coast within two days.

Local emergency crews were on standby to clean any oil that reached mainland beaches, she said.

Aircraft on Sunday began spraying a chemicals on the oil patches to disperse it, she said.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said authorities had been working through the night to determine what risks the ship posed to the environment.

"The government is very conscious of the importance of the Great Barrier Reef environment and ensuring that impacts on its ecology are effectively managed," Garrett said in a statement.

The 755 foot (230 meter) bulk carrier was carrying about 72,000 U.S. tons (65,000 metric tons) of coal to China and ran aground within hours of leaving the Queensland port of Gladstone. More>>>