Dateline: 24 May 2012
 |
| This map shows the Utica Shale "Fairway" (explanation below). Click picture to see an enlarged view. |
The Sempronius town board meeting of May 21, 2012 was remarkably subdued and civil compared to previous meetings that I’ve reported on here since hydrofracking became an issue in our town. All board members were present, as were about eight town residents, three of whom are members of our volunteer citizen committee, which is tasked with looking into the impact that hydrofracking may have on our town.
A member of the committee reported to the board that they are not prepared at this time to advise the board about how to proceed regarding a moratorium on hydrofracking.
The same committee member then presented the board with copies of what appears to be a well-researched, 12-page report he compiled, titled “Considerations of Gas Drilling on the Town’s Water Wells and Aquifers.”
The report brings to light several bits of information that I was not aware of. I’ll condense it into four sections, as follows...
1.
According to the report, it is “unlikely” that High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) would be used in the town of Sempronius to drill in either the Marcellus Shale or the Utica Shale. This is due to the fact that the Marcellus shale is too shallow under our town (less than 2,000 feet deep) for drilling. That much I was aware of. But the report states that the Utica shale under our town is outside the “Utica Shale Fairway” which is that area of the deposit determined to be most economical and feasible to drill. The picture at the top of this essay is the one included in the report. It can be viewed along with information pertaining to the Utica Shale deposit in New York at this PDF link: www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/rdsgeisch40911.pdf
2.
The report states, based on information supplied by the 1992 NY State Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and the 2011 Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (RDSGEIS), that hydrofracking is prohibited within 4,000 feet of the Skaneateles Lake watershed. From the map supplied with the report, this prohibited zone would cover almost the entire northeast half of our town, as divided by a diagonal line extending from northwest to southeast.
3.
Many other areas of our town would require a “site specific SEQRA determination of significance” before drilling could take place. SEQRA is the acronym for State Environmental Quality Review Act. The SEQRA study (SEQRA is pronounced as “seeker.”) would be required within 500 feet of a “principal aquifer.” It so happens that a large section of the southwest corner of Sempronius lies over a mapped principal aquifer. Also, any drilling in a designated “Agricultural District” would require a SEQRA study, and a significant section of Sempronius is classified as an agricultural district.
4.
The report further states that all primary and principle aquifers in the town of Sempronius have not been sufficiently mapped, and that, in order for gas drilling to be properly regulated in the town, a USGS hydrology (aquifer) study is necessary. The cost of such a study would be around $250,000. It was suggested that a gas company may be required to pay for such a study as a condition for drilling in the town.
I, for one, greatly appreciate the work that went into this paper. It is exactly the kind of information that our town board needs.
As for my thoughts on the information presented in the paper....
First, I sincerely hope that HVHF truly is not a likelihood in our town, and I would be perfectly willing to accept that presumption if it were not for the fact that, from what I’ve been led to believe, gas leases in Sempronius continue to be renewed. Why would a gas company spend money for leases it never intends to utilize? Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for that, but I don’t know what it is. And I have to believe that proper prudence in this matter requires a healthy dose of skepticism, especially when the health, safety, and general welfare of people in our community are concerned.
And then there is the Trenton and Black River shale deposits under our town (and directly under the Utica shale). Perhaps this is where the gas companies would want to employ hydrofracking technology?
The whole matter of SEQRA is new to me. It was suggested that the Sempronius Town Board an the community may have some role in the SEQRA approval process. I’d like to know more about this aspect of the issue.
As I stated at the board meeting, when the two vertical gas wells (not hydrofracked horizontal wells) were drilled in Sempronius in 2008/2009, our town board played no role in any approval process. I’ve been told that we received a copy of the permits issued by the DEC, but I was on the board at that time and I clearly recall that we had no official interaction with the gas company. The matter was completely out of our hands.
==========
Another pertinent aspect of the May board meeting was a report from our Highway Supervisor who attended a forum on road laws in Cortland on May 8th. An attorney with the New York Sate Association of Towns spoke about options for dealing with heavy truck traffic on town roads.
We have 33 miles of town roads. These roads were not made to handle continuous traffic from heavy trucks.
According to information provided by the Association of Towns speaker, it is estimated that each horizontal gas well will require an average of 178,000 (and as many as 266,000) heavy truck trips in the first five years of operation. When you figure that a single well pad has multiple wells, it adds up to an enormous amount of truck traffic on some local roads. Our town roads have never experienced traffic density anywhere near to that.
Update: I've been told by someone who knows better that the above number of 178,000 truck trips is not correct. The number is lower, but still very high. Maybe the Association of Towns inadvertently added an extra zero and the actual number is 17,800?
Another attorney, Mark Sweeney, from Whiteman, Osteman & Hanna, also spoke at the Cortland forum. And Delta Engineering, of Endwell, N.Y. spoke about the services they offer to towns considering the implementation of road laws.
Delta will, for a cost of $10,000, perform an engineering study of our roads to determine baseline conditions.
No one wants to spend $10,000 on an engineering study that may not be necessary and, engineering study or not, if our town pursues the option of road use laws, it appears to me that we will find ourselves in a quagmire of legal concerns and issues.
Bearing in mind all of what I’ve written thus far, it seems to me that the wisest course of action for our town board to take would be to simply pass a local law banning all hydrofracking activity in Sempronius.
It is clear to me that Sempronius is ill prepared and poorly equipped to handle the industrialization of our rural township. A ban on hydrofracking would put the brakes on this entire issue.
I believe a ban is warranted to protect the health, safety and general welfare of our community (would you want 178,000 heavy trucks driving past your house in the next five years (plus light trucks)? Increased motor vehicle accidents are likely. So hydrofracking itself is not the only safety issue we need to concern ourselves with. An incidental benefit to a ban would be that we avoid the mire of new local road laws and road-use agreements.
The only other option I see in this matter is to completely ignore hydrofracking and road-use laws, and just hope and wish that nothing bad will ever happen. That might work, but it’s a gamble, and I don’t think any town board should gamble when the health, safety, and general welfare of the people in a town are at stake. The responsible course of action, as I see it now, would be a complete ban.
Bans are not permanent. Any town that enacts a ban can, at a later date, undo it. I’ll state it again...
It is clear to me that Sempronius is ill prepared and poorly equipped to handle the industrialization of our rural township. A ban on hydrofrackingmakes perfect sense to me. As with a moratorium, I see no downside to a ban. Better safe than sorry.