CNYScott

Deer/Black Bear: Winchester Model 70 Featherlite in .270; Bushnell Big Game Trophy 3-9 40mm scope Elk/Larger species of bear: Ruger M77 Mark II Synthetic stock/SS barrel & receiver in .300 WinMag; Leupold 3-9 42mm scope Shotgun (slug): Savage 88 12 gauge (Mossberg security line) converted with a ported rifled slug barrel; Bushnell Big Game Trophy 3-9 40mm scope Turkey: Mossberg 835 UltiMag 12 gauge full camo; open sights Black Powder: Traditions .50 Caliber; open sights "Oh Shit" back-up sidearms: Colt King Cobra in .357 magnum Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in .44 Magnum

NYC based news station NY1, owned by Time Warner, just released this very even-handed special that looks at natural gas drilling and hydrofracing in New York State. A short 22 minutes long it covers a lot of details well, and gives ample due to both sides. If you are interested in this topic is is well worth the time. http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/hydrofracking_the_pressure_to_drill/ At the end I still am compelled to point-out that the pro side seems to have science based facts, the against side fear and speculation, but that's my editorial comment. I'm not going to continue the debate on this forum, but I am happy to continue to provide information that I deem credible to help everyone decide for themselves.

Not what said or claimed. I'm done with circular bickering.

You're good with me too. Didn't mean to be testy. Sore as Hell (and a little grumpy) from bushwhacking through thigh-high snow yesterday, but we got two nice does for our efforts. Not looking forward to traveling today to Pittsburgh with the airline issues this week. Hope I get back tomorrow!

doewhacker - a lobbyist meets a technical definition established by NYS law with which we have not met that threshold this year. I believe 2011 activities will be different and we will file after which you can see all of our disclosures of what we are paid, and spend money on, six times per year like any other resident with internet access. Be glad your profession does not require the same. We are lobbyists for other clients. I know my business very well, so save your know-it-all answers and stay on subject. A "thank you" you would be nice. I joined this forum for hunting experiences, and have spent at least 1/2 my time trying to provide straight forward answers to all on Marcellus Shale drilling. I've provided plenty of info with facts and sources to back it up, so whether you agree or not, you're welcome. Think I'll stick to hunting going forward.

Not even sure what you mean, flny77, but it sounds like I should be insulted. I've taken a long time to describe my considerable experience with this industry. I'm not going to debate it on a hunting forum. Please take it how you will, as I've stated previously. I've tried to provide detailed fact-based information and fully disclosed my involvement multiple times, right from the start. Some people won't be convinced no matter what.

As I disclosed up front, my firm does government and public affairs for a trade association (ANGA) that represents 34 natural gas companies. Before we agreed to represent them I spent a month investigating the news accounts, meeting with independent scientists and hydrogeologists, DEC attorneys and SUNY ESF administration and professors. Being an outdoorsman and conservationist I too was very unsettled by many of the contamination claims. I've found them to lacking in evidence of cause related to drilling. After going on a rig tour in PA and completing my investigation I was confident that the companies involved with ANGA are good corporate citizens and that we have a major opportunity in NY worth pursuing for clean energy, energy independence and development of a significant new industry in Upstate NY. I'm a life-long CNY'er except for military service and grad school. I care deeply about the stewardship of our environment. I am confident that this proven technology can be used safely in the Marcellus in NY. I am confident that I've done my due diligence and in the year I've worked with ANGA been exposed to many views, pro and con. The major difference seems that pro side has science and facts, and con is largely speculative, makes claims that are scientifically impossible or raises issues that I know will be properly addressed in the DEC SGEIS. That's not to diminish the fear surrounding the issue - the industry has historically not done a good job telling it's story.

Finished off the regular season with two nice does between four of us on Sunday in 7M.

No way this issue goes away. The DEC is making a policy of strict standards and needs the extra time to get it done. The fact that high volume drilling is coming is probably a question of when, not if. It's been in use for 60 years and the policy formulation at DEC has been ongoing for two years.

On Paterson: The veto was good based on the bad overreach in the bill. Shame on the legislators and activists that wanted it to be signed regardless. It would have put 300 businesses under and 5,000 people out of work on current vertical small volume hydrofraced drills. On the Buffalo article: There seems to be a lot of lawyers making contamination claims, less so from scientists. From the above mentioned article: In fact, Chesapeake tested residential water wells within 2,500 feet of its gas well pad sites before drilling began -- and found that about a third already were tainted with methane. "My perception is there have been few demonstrative direct impacts from Marcellus drilling," said Michael A. Arthur, a professor of geosciences and co-director of Pennsylvania State University's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research. "It's pre-existing contamination. It's not Marcellus." On Hunting: I took a nice doe Sunday to add to the freezer, next to my 8-pt buck. Buddy got a doe as well. Good hunting this year in 7M.

I couldn't imagine not having a good lawyer on board if I was involved in any contract - especially over use of my own land. Guys - it's been fun. I have to make some money this afternoon before I hit the woods this weekend for a doe in 7M. Feel free to post/question/rant - my responses won't likely be immediate for the next few days.

The industry has begged for an increase in permit application fees - currently $300, INDUSTRY has asked for an increase to $4,000 - $5,000 per, simply to ensure proper funding for DEC regulatory staff. They are clearly understaffed. The suggestion has been rebuffed thus far citing a legal inability to direct funds - in reality what that means is that the state would love the revenue but wants to spend it as they see fit. DEC has been fine, it's the elected officials who are falling short. I know that comes as a shock to NY residents...

Haliburton is not an ANGA member company. Willingness will be a moot point in NY. We fully expect disclosure to DEC of the fluid recipe to be a mandatory disclosure to be issued a permit in NY. No recipe - no permit - no drilling. ANGA is comfortable with that policy. Indeed, most already disclose despite claims to the contrary (as recently as in Buffalo, NY yesterday).

doewhacker - on the issue of water pull it is the case that much of it comes locally. This is one of the major issues the DEC's SGEIS will address. In speaking with several hydrogeologists with extensive knowledge of the NY water table the amount is not a concern - we have plenty. How and when it is extracted does matter, and the DEC will establish guidelines for it. I'm an avid fisherman as well as hunter, so this is of big concern to me too. Rather than throw our hands up in frustration, a lot of people are working the problem to come up with viable public policy to address these concerns. I'm confident they will.

doewhacker - I'd agree with you on the speed. "Moving at the speed of government" is a phrase I use frequently, and it's not a compliment. I'd respectfully disagree that there are a large amount of unanswered questions. The answers are ofter very technical, and many don't really want the answers (I don't mean you, by the way). Finally, absolutely disagree with the "Screw 'em" business attitude. My extensive personal experience with these companies has shown them to be very engaged, very concerned with local image and business practices, and very technically competent. I have not witnessed nor experienced anything that would lead me to believe that they are purposefully out to cut corners or damage the environment. In fact, many industry folks are locally hired. I find it very difficult to believe that they would poison their own community to feed their corporate masters. Just haven't seen a shred of evidence of that.

Drilling is an industrial site, no question. Splashing past a basin would be a surface spill that would need to be reclaimed. Technology exists now that reuses water and I think the basin methodology will not be used/allowed in NY - not sure, but that's what I've heard. The scar picture looks like a drill site in which drilling is complete, equipment removed, but is prior to reclamation. The end result will be as I posted previously. Culvercreek - that was the case. I'm quite certain all companies now do baseline testing if for no other reason to avoid frivolous lawsuits.

My "battle buddy" at the ROTC Advanced Camp course at Ft. Bragg was Charles Brown - Charlie Brown. He was built like a truck and took a lot of ribbing for being a male cheerleader at University of Virginia. He shut us all up one day when he pointed out he was the only guy in the platoon that could hold a beautiful girl in public, in a miniskirt, above his head by her crotch and not get arrested for it. We found new respect for Charlie Brown that day.

Had a guy in my IOBC platoon at Ft. Benning named Lester Moore - went by Les Moore. He was from West Virginia. Could not understand a word he said but prior to becoming an officer he was enlisted and a sniper in Germany. Best damn shot I've ever seen. Could hit anything within range of the weapon in his hands, no scope needed.

doewhacker - thanks for posting those links. Here is the relevant summary, which is largely inconclusive, says frac lines are "maybe" a contributing factor, but listed many other potential factors as well (These cases are from wells drilled in the 1980's and 1990's). There is a new, updated study underway by the EPA and the NYS DEC. Bottom line - this industry improves its technology, procedures and safety record every month. There is a safe way to conduct large volume hydrolic fracing. In this chapter, EPA has presented information (in addition to technical, conceptual, or theoretical information presented previously) on personal experiences with regard to coalbed methane activities and their potential (or perceived potential) to impact drinking water wells. These personal accounts of potential incidences in four producing coal basins across the United States do not present scientific findings. However, the body of reported problems considered collectively suggest that water quality (and quantity) problems might be associated with some of the production activities common to coalbed methane extraction. These activities include surface discharge of fracturing and production fluids, aquifer/formation dewatering, water withdrawal from production wells, methane migration through conduits created by drilling and fracturing practices, or any combination of these. Other potential sources of drinking water problems include various aspects of resource development, naturally occurring conditions, population growth and historical practices.In several of the coalbed methane investigation areas, local agencies concluded that hydraulic fracturing could not affect drinking water wells. Generally, these conclusions were based on there being a significant horizontal and/or vertical distance between the coalbed methane production wells and the drinking water wells.

Bill, it actually does not impact groundwater. The casing technology and depth ensure that those water sources don't meet. They are thousands of feet apart, separated by impermeable bedrock. In the very rare case of a surface leak from a tank, truck, etc., those are reclaimed per all regulatory guidelines. DEC has noted just one such case since 1971 for the over 13,000 drills operating in NY. Other claims of contamination have been shown to be pre-existing. In fact, some citizens from the infamous Dimock, PA, contacted us yesterday. They are sick of their community being portrayed as a cess pool caused by the gas industry. According to one gentleman with an environmental engineering background, he bought his Dimock home in 1999 knowing that his well contained high levels of methane and iron. It has always been dark and flammable. Despite no proof of any contamination of any well (lawsuits are ongoing) the energy company in question has refurbished all wells for the asking, does regular testing and installs at their cost filtration systems in individual homes -- these are for people with no gas leases and a history of well water contamination prior to drilling one inch! They are trying to give people piece of mind and be good corporate citizens. Most residents are tired of a handful of neighbors searching for jackpot justice by making unsubstantiated claims. A woman who owns an inn in northern PA said she's gone from 9 year-round employees to 32, all do to the presence of drilling in the area. These are not isolated successes. I've done my homework, and presented the case as I know it. I can't produce evidence of what-ifs, maybes and could be's. People are either convinced by facts or they choose to believe the worst, facts be damned. I'm a realist. Facts matter to me. As I stated at the beginning of this long string, I investigated this industry with respected independent third-party sources BEFORE I agreed to represent them. I've shared my findings with my fellow forum members. If I've failed to make my case, we'll agree to disagree.

Lest the video scares you with the large presence of drilling equipment - that is temporary as the video states. This picture shows an active producing well, post drilling, with reclaimed land. The footprint is 1/4 - 1/2 acre with an access road.

Procedure video, in detail: Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing Fracing fluid chemicals: http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Fracturing-Ingredients/Pages/information.aspx

Friends -- Since many have expressed a lack of available information here is a link to America's Natural Gas Alliance, a natural gas industry trade association that my firm represents in New York State as I've previously disclosed. Far from nefarious business shells and purposely plotting to poison the earth, I think you'll find it informative, useful and full of actual scientific facts. Again, admittedly I'm presenting the industry side, individuals must choose to decide what is right for them. http://www.anga.us/ I'd agree this has been a useful topic and one that certainly impacts the hunting community. As for me I plan on getting out and hunting for the next couple of days while we can! Hunt safe and well if you're headed out.

I think it's fair to say a lot of progress has been made in the two years since your meeting. DEC will require it, and most companies have expressed a willingness to give their formulas to regulators.

Maybe we could start a brassica planting initiative when the drilling is complete and the land is reclaimed.