Doh! When "Neutral" Ain't: The Columbia County Landowner's Coalition Meeting, 6.2.14, Benton, Pennsylvania

TRANSCO pipeline cut through farmland, Hughesville, PA. Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

Bruce Anderson goes to great lengths to reassure his audience that he's an "environmentalist," and that he's not employed by the gas companies. He is keen to establish his credibility as a " federally licensed nuclear reactor control room operator" presumably to reassure us that he's got his own income and that he's a smart guy.

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

But that's just the set up for a meeting of the Columbia County Landowners Coalition (Columbia County Landowners Coalition) designed to reassure the audience that what they'll be hearing is neutral, objective information. 

And that's true--as far as it goes. But clues that this isn't really an informational meeting--but a promotional for Williams Partner's (WPZ)"Atlantic Sunrise" (ASP) expansion of the TRANSCO begin to pile up the minute Anderson transits from "you can trust me" reassurance to what amounts to lease coordinator for WPZ.  


Clue One: Consider Anderson's first content slide. This claim is true--but it assumes that all that is needed to make the region's shale plays productive are the pipelines to move the gas to market--leaving his audience with the impression that if they had leased land to drilling they might still make out on future royalties. 

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

But while that is possible, it's unlikely. Here's the Martin Well Pad (DEP permit #037-20001) as of 9.29.11:

Not much has changed. There was a truck rig on site last week. Williams is still prodding the well. Workers were pumping out frack fluid and attempting an operation to try to bring the well to life. The well has no pressure. When the workers opened the well cap there was a huge 'whooshing sucking sound' I was told.  The sound was the frack fluid in the well bore dropping. Think of how you put a straw in a glass of water, place your thumb over the top of the straw and remove the straw from the glass..then remove your thumb from the straw. The water quickly drops through the straw. I'm told what the workers are attempting is a long shot. Evidently the Marcellus has dead zones where the shale is so compacted that the gas can't escape after the initial fracking operation. The pressure in the well went from 2200 psi the day the fracking was completed to about 5 psi five days later. (Forum 656148: Martin Well Status)

And as of the last status report for Williams' drilling interests in Columbia County, 11.17.11:

All drilling activity by Williams is on hold in Columbia county pending the status of the Martin well. The well next to Bear fuel on #118 is also on hold indefinitely. That site had a test well drilled earlier this year. The major operator is EXCO with Williams being a joint venture partner with a 10% interest. Williams was informed several weeks ago that EXCO has abondoned any further operations at that site due to lack of positive data from the test well and the failure of the Martin well to produce any meaningful gas volume. (Forum 656148: Don't Get Too Excited).

To imply that "lack of pipeline" is responsible for lack of frack gas production is a bit disingenuous--there's no pressure down the hole, and there isn't likely to be in these "dead zones." 

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

Moreover,  the claim that "the economics were not here," while also true isn't the whole story. As I've shown, the economics aren't here, or even "here" in the United States. The economics are in LNG export to global markets, and while Williams claims that "there are no LNG [Liquified Natural Gas] terminal facilities related to or proposed as part of the Project," the relationship between Williams and Dominion--who wants to convert an LNG import to export at Cove Point, MD--is cozy if not incestuous. Dominion purchased the Cove Point facility from Williams in 2002 for $217 million, and the reference to Fairfax County, Virginia in the WPZ FERC Pre-Filing Documents is at least indirectly connected to Dominion's plan at Cove Point. 

Dominion's project slogan is "Support Maryland Sending Clean Energy to the World," and Williams certainly comprehends the opportunity to export to Chinese and Indian buyers, for example, the Gulf Trace Project (THE WRENCH: When Sunrise for the Global Gas Markets is Sunset for Pennsylvania: Williams Partner's "Atlantic Sunrise" Expansion of the TRANSCO). At the CCLC WPZ Promotional, Anderson bristled audibly when I pointed out that ASP was on its way to LNG export--but the maps he himself presented make this clear.

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

UPSHOT: (1) whatever money lease-holders might stand to make off the ASP, it isn't going to be because any drill sites in Columbia County are going to miraculously re-pressurize. So it just isn't lack of pipeline--at least not here--that's going to make folks rich. (2) Any notion you might have that you're doing your patriotic duty or contributing to national security is unvarnished Bull-Pucky. As I have said a gazillion times, the gas industry waves the flag for one reason, and one reason only, to sucker you into leasing your land so they can make piles of profits all the while externalizing the long-term costs to your property value loss, your polluted water, your fractured community, your ill-health, and your screwed over kids.  

Clue Two: Anderson resorts to fear-mongering and an "us against them" strategy to get his audience to circle the wagons--and lease their land.

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

One of the public meetings Anderson attended was a meeting of Columbia County Pipeline Awareness (CCPA)--a newly formed group aimed primarily at encouraging folks along the ASP right-of-way to engage the FERC comment process. Despite his claim that "all the guest speakers were from outside Columbia County" all of the speakers at the CCPA meeting --guest or otherwise--were either local or regional--and several had farms directly on the ASP right-of-way. To claim otherwise is not only false, it's an attempt to create distrust--fear--among landowners on the ASP right-of-way by implying that these "outsiders" have some agenda other than, say, telling the truth. 

It's also notable that when Anderson and his wife were cordially asked to identify themselves and provide a reason for coming to the meeting, they did not reveal that they headed the Columbia County Landowner's Coalition, and that CCLC's stated objective is "to help land owners in their respective communities to obtain the best value and lease options for a comprehensive gas lease on their property in the Marcellus Shale and other formations," AKA: make the most money leasing their land (Columbia County Landowners Coalition). The Anderson's came to the CCPA meeting to do reconnaissance for CCLC in the interest of insuring that resistance doesn't reach the landowners.

Why else have Benton Police at the CCLC Shin-dig?

TRANSCO, Hughesville, PA. Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

What Anderson means by "fear," of course, is that these out-sider meetings include factual information that CCLC doesn't want its members to think about too much--like WPZ' record of accident and explosion. But if this was my land, I'd surely want to know stuff like this--wouldn't you?

 

1. 2008 – Natural gas explosion in Virginia [Transco] the blast ripped a 32-foot section of pipe from the ground and caused a 1,100 feet burn zone. Property damage reported to exceed $3 million. 2. 2010 – Transco Pipeline leak in Texas. Leak was not reported for 4 days. The 1/4 inch diameter leak caused a reported $57,000 in property damage. Aerial patrol did not see the leak. Found by an operator who saw some bubbles.
 3. 2010 / 2011– FINED $275 Thousand over failing to implement and/or maintain storm water measures to prevent potential pollutants during planned construction in Parachute, Colorado. State inspectors notified Williams (Bargath) in Nov. 2010 of violations and told them to take immediate action. According to report, Williams did not fix violation for 7 months. 4. 2013 (Jan) – Williams discovers leak of NGLs in Parachute plant while working on construction to expand the plant. Reports say the leak was found by ACCIDENT. Leak stopped, but Benzene, a cancer causing agent, has contaminated soil. Williams says leak not affecting creek. (March 15) – Groundwater in Parachute is contaminated with Benzene from NGL leak. Spill finally announced to public. Benzene is cancer-causing agent that breaks down bone marrow. 5. 2012 – Gas leak caused explosion at Natural Gas Compressor Station inPennsylvania. Williams restarts the station within 24 hours and started pumping fracked gas despite request from PA Dept. of Environmental Protection not to do so. DEP states they make it very clear on the above matter but because it was not an official order no fines were issued. 1 ton of Methane released.

Pipeline Rupture, Rt. 220
Sonestown, PA
Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

 6. 2013 (April) – Williams say faulty pressure gauge cause of leak in Parachute. Diesel found at gates of Parachute water supply. Benzene detected in creek. State Health Dept takes over oversight of leak. (8) (9) (May) – Benzene levels rise in Parachute, CO creek. State agency tells Williams violated it the law. (8). Williams announces it will not expand the Parachute, Co plant expansion NOT because of the NGL leak but due to low gas prices. 7. 2013 (June 13) – Williams’ Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) cracker plant that process NGLs in Louisiana. Explodes and Burns. That chemical plant was in middle of $350 million expansion. 700 contract workers were present; 2 people killed (ages 29 & 47); 70 injuries; 62,000 pounds of toxic chemical released.
 8. 2014 (May 14)A probe into safety practices at pipeline operator Williams Cos. (WMB) is being expanded after a natural gas plant fire led to the evacuation of a town in Wyoming last month, the company’s third accident in a year… In December, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Williams for six safety violations at the Geismar plant and proposed a $99,000 fine.

Does that information potentially create fear? You bet. At least if you've got any sense. But that's not rightly called "fear mongering." In Williams' case, it's called truth telling.

Upshot: just because you may not want to know the ecological and health hazards of Williams expansion of the TRANSCO doesn't mean they don't exist. Any informational meeting that does not include this is far more than remiss--it is grotesquely liable for omission.

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

Clue Three: Anderson tells the audience that the letters they've received from Williams "contain a permission form which grants permission for survey work only." While that may be true--it is a serious misrepresentation of Williams' intentions. Once you grant them access to your land, they are going to exert all the pressure of an invading army to get you to sign a lease.

If you still refuse to do so, they're coming back as a "public utility" granted to them through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to take your land as eminent domain. If you experience any confusion about what this means--especially in light of legitimate worries borne of the nasty accident record profiled above, please go here, and scroll down to the property owner's guide to eminent domain: 

Atlantic Sunrise Project: Williams Companies, Inc. | Shale Justice

Anderson acknowledges the possibility that Williams can take your land without your permission--but hedges it. He then answers a question about whether land can be taken via forced pooling by claiming that it can't because ACT 13 was overturned!

It's hard to know where to begin to dispel this level of ignorance. But suffice this much for now:

1. ACT 13 was a state law overturned in part--not in whole, and the part that was overturned did effectively gut municipalities from being able to control drilling operations within their borders. This was patently unconstitutional, reflected the corruption of the Corbett administration, and was rightly shot down.

2. Act 13 never addressed forced pooling. Period. End of story.

3. The ACT 13 decision  is irrelevant at least to the extent that ASP crosses not only municipality boundaries--but state boundaries--and hence state law would have had virtually no say about ASP in any case. This will be reinforced if FERC grants Williams the status of a public utility. All the Act 13s in the world weren't going to keep Williams from appealing to eminent domain to get right-of-way on your land.

4. By allowing Universal Field Services to survey, you're helping Williams plan and execute a 42 inch natural gas pipeline--including its compressors, dehydrators, and LNG export to the highest bidder. 

Upshot: don't waste your time thinking that a little bitty survey isn't an agreement with Williams. It is. Once that flagging is up, once Williams is settled on their route, they are going to build that pipeline, and if they have to use eminent domain to do it, be prepared.

  
The moral of my story  is simple: there are lots of "Andersons," and whether they're on the payroll of the gas companies or not, their aim is to deliver you to the landman. Meetings that advertise themselves as informational--but omit critical data about property rights, potential for accident, the refusal of insurance companies to insure you if you have a gas lease (See Erie's above) do you a serious disservice.

Could be your land. Picture Rocks, PA. Photo Wendy Lynne lee

Starting with the survey "request," tell the landman no. Tell him to leave. Then make a copy of this, and go talk to your neighbor. FERC is entirely useless, but when enough folks on the right-of-way say no, stick to their guns, and act like a community, Williams just might get the message.

WHEN "REGULATION" MEANS "NEGOTIATING THE TERMS OF SURRENDER": COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER. 78, PENNSYLVANIA OIL AND GAS CODE

Hearing: 1.13.14, 6-9PM, Pennsylvania College of Technology, Klump Academic Center, One College Avenue, Williamsport, PA, 17701.

Talking Points from The Delaware Riverkeepers: http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/resources/Factsheets/Final%20Talking%20Points%201.6.pdf

Comments on proposed changes to Pennsylvania’s oil and gas regulations. Ch. 78, PA Code:

My name is Wendy Lynne Lee, Shale Justice Coalition. I’d like to begin by reiterating that the public comment period must be expanded to 120 days minimum with more hearings in frack-affected counties. This expansion is crucial not only to insuring that affected people and communities get to be heard, but because being heard is a bulwark of a democracy, however much this state and its agencies routinely ignore it just as they ignore the science relevant to the hazards posed by fracking and its associated infrastructure.

As opposed to commenting on each of the stipulated changes proposed for Ch. 78, I’d like to address the very idea that hydraulic fracturing from well-head to compressor, to pipeline, to export depot, to LNG transport tanker, can be regulated sufficiently to guarantee the ecological integrity, species diversity, human health, property value, or the constitutional right to clean air and water. While perhaps no regulation can offer guarantee against accident, the now well-documented hazards posed by fracking have clearly been shown to be substantial whether or not accidents occur. Hence it is equally clear that no regulation can be adequate to make this process of industrialized extraction safe.

We know that the intent of the industry is not to make fracking safe, but to make it as inexpensive, expeditious, and profitable as possible. Today’s hearing on Senate Bill 411, legislation that would render immune to liability the use of acid mine drainage as frack water, SB 1047 that would gut and politicize the process by which species are listed as endangered, or SB 259 that would allow old leases to be treated as newly negotiated, even if the leaseholder declines to permit fracking on her property or didn’t know there was an old lease, make plain that regulation in Pennsylvania is written by and crafted for oil and gas. Because fracking is inherently unsafe, the proposed changes to Ch. 78 are inconsistent with Article 1, section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Given, moreover, the clear legislative pattern we must assume that the intent of the changes is consistent with SB 411, SB 1047, and SB 259—to act to facilitate the interests of the oil and gas industries.

What the “proposed changes” really encapsulate, therefore, are the negotiated terms of our surrender to these industries. We at Shale Justice have no interest in acceding to this forfeiture of our autonomy as citizens or our recently reaffirmed right to clean air and water. We’d like to thank Chief Justice Castille for his role in the over-turning of Act 13. To accede to any of these “proposed changes” runs directly contrary to that 4-2 Supreme Court decision.

Here’s why:

To wrestle over the details of changes to Ch. 78 presumes that fracking will continue. Many are resigned to this grim possibility. Otherwise, we’d not be haggling over who’s responsible for pre-drill water testing, the use of open pits for frack waste water, the definition of fresh water, the disposal of brine, or the status of orphaned wells. Make no mistake: the industry will cry foul that such regulatory changes will cost them too much money, that they are somehow the injured party. But the facts are that these proposed changes are nothing but crumbs offered to appease us, to convince us that the agencies charged with protecting our air and water actually act to do so. The language here follows the pattern of SB 411 that aims to convert acid mine drainage into “beneficial use” even though its primary effect is to relieve the industry from liability for contaminated water. It follows SB 1047’s absurd argument that “endangered” is best determined via economic matrices. It follows SB 259 that empowers the industry to access more land for drilling under the guise of making royalties more transparent. We cannot afford to accede one more inch to oil and gas drilling. Can you imagine what our country-sides, forests, rivers and trout runs will look like if the proposed Dominion export depot at Cove Point Maryland is completed? 7000 wells will become 100,000, and with it we will become a fossil fuel extraction colony owned and operated by multinational corporations.

I urge you say no to more “regulation.” Why on earth should we surrender our autonomy, our communities, and our health to a rate of harm? Just as there’s no such thing as a little pregnant, there’s no such thing as a little cancer, a little asthma, a little bran damage. Many things are negotiable. Some are not. Just as there could be no compromise on apartheid or slavery, there can be none when the stakes are climate change. Whether we like it or not, our responsibilities are global. Hence there’s also no such thing as a “special place” unless what we mean is the planet.

My yard’s a special place.

So is yours.

From Marie Cusick, State Impact: "Scientists document gas development disturbing forest ecosystems"

Here's our Department of Conservation and Natural Resources at work--denying Right to Know requests about when their eight million dollar report on the effects of gas drilling on forests will finally be done!

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/01/09/scientists-document-gas-development-disturbing-forest-ecosystems/

Thanks, however, to Shale Justice's Kevin Heatley for making the effects clear--and he didn't cost 8 million dollars!

From Mr. Heatley: "“Everything from the noise and the traffic to the lighting, to the pad placements, to the pipeline construction to the road expansion,” he says. “This is all industrial infrastructure. It’s inherently incompatible with sustainable forest management.”

Exactly.

And right along with that forest fragmentation goes the habitat for species of animal that don't do well near people--that need contiguous forest to thrive. Hence, it's no wonder at all that the gas companies want to do away with protections for endangered species--what State Rep. Jeff Pyle mistakenly calls "game species"--It's also no wonder that he's bought lock, stock, and frack-fluid barrel by the industry.

For more on the connection between Mr. Pyle's intrepid legislation to gut PA's endangered species act (SB 1047/HB 1576), forest fragmentation, and the now largely overturned Act 13, please see:

http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2013/12/lets-make-2014-year-natural-gas.html

Let's Make 2014 the Year The Natural Gas Industry Became an Endangered Species

First, we pause to say "Hallelujah!" Key portions of Pennsylvania's Act 13 were overturned Thursday, 12.19.13: "Act 13 is the legislation that allowed the state government to supersede local control and mandate local ordinance changes to accommodate natural gas extraction in the state."

But what deserves a double scoop of "Hallelujah!" is the reasoning behind Republican Chief Justice Castille's delivery of the 4-2 decision:

“Act 13’s primary stated purpose is not to effectuate the constitutional obligation to protect and preserve Pennsylvania’s natural environment,” the majority decision read. “Rather, the purpose of the statute is to provide a maximally favorable environment for industry operators to exploit Pennsylvania’s oil and natural gas resources, including those in the Marcellus Shale Formation.”

In other words, Act 13 clearly violates Article 1, Sec. 27, or the Environmental Rights Amendment of the state’s Constitution:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.

The reaffirmation of the Environmental Rights Amendment, however, not only empowers local governments with respect to drilling, it also must be seen as an opportunity to empower and reinvigorate the growing movement to put a halt to every other piece of frack-happy industry favoring legislation--including Republican House Representative Jeff Pyle's Endangered Species Coordination Act, (HB 1576/SB 1047) :

The legislation has four main elements: 1) standardizes a state process for listing of threatened or endangered species by formalizing existing resource agency authority via rulemaking; 2) consolidates the listings into a centralized database managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; 3) grants access to information in the database to planners required to consider the impacts that a project could have or to those involved in conservationist efforts; and 4) protects sensitive data by prohibiting the disclosure of the information to anyone not involved in a development or conservation project. Another benefit of this legislation is that it places the decisions of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Pennsylvania Game Commission under the review of Independent Regulatory Review Commission. As Pennsylvania’s last two remaining extra-governmental promulgated rule making bodies, the right of our concerned citizens to exercise due process in appealing a decision would, for the first time, have a forum to do so with the IRRC. The legislation does not, however, address or direct any establishment of seasons, bag limits, et al. (http://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20130&cosponId=12965).

But here are the plainly spelled out consequences if HB 1576 passes:

Severely restrict the ability of state agencies to designate any species as threatened or endangered unless those species are first listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Part of the goal of state conservation efforts is to prevent species declines in regions and to head off a federal listing in the first place.

Severely restricts the ability of the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) to designate a wild trout stream.

Bring any action by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the PFBC to designate threatened or endangered species, or a wild trout stream in the case of the PFBC, under the Regulatory Review Act. This action would result in significant delay for species listings and stream designations, and politicize decisions that should be made on the basis of sound science.

Remove within two years of the effective date of the bill all species now listed as threatened or endangered at the state level in Pennsylvania, unless the agency is able to re-designate the species under the severe and difficult restrictions imposed by the act. (http://pfsessiondaze.blogspot.com/2013/08/house-hearing-scheduled-on-bill.html)

In other words, decisions about what counts as an endangered species would depend no longer on scientific evidence and expertise, but on political expediency.

The Endangered Species Coordination Act has much in common with Act 13, but at bottom what they share most intimately is the wholesale trouncing of the Environmental Rights Amendment in favor of, as Chief Judge Castille put it, "a maximally favorable environment for industry operators to exploit Pennsylvania’s oil and natural gas resources" at the cost of the human communities and the ecology of the Commonwealth.

The connection to the specifics of HB 1576 are simple: endangered species of animal and vegetation inhabit--just as their less endangered fellows--the ecologies underneath which lay the Marcellus Shale. Getting to the gas requires the disruption and destruction of that ecology. The critters, flora and fauna are in the way. Insuring a "maximally favorable environment" for drilling therefore requires getting them out of the way, and if they're endangered, well, that could mean their extinction. Too bad. There's money to be made.

The trouble, of course, is that there is no loss of one species of critter or vegetation without potentially affecting the entirety of a particular ecosystem (consider, for example, relationships of predator/prey, parasite, symbiosis, fertilization, etc). Hence, any piece of legislation that so clearly threatens to endanger species already endangered also threatens the ecosystems upon which that species depends--and that clearly violates the Environmental Rights Amendment.

End of story.

It's stunning, in fact, that anyone would append their name to so bald a violation--yet, when it's the gas industry or their own parasites, "bald" seems to be the order of the day:

Since the entirely fake hearings conducted Summer 2013--hearings that allowed for no public comment-- a letter signed by 25 industries, each of whom would directly or indirectly benefit from the elimination of protections for the state's endangered species, was posted in support of HB 1576. Here's just a sample

George Ellis
President
PA Coal Alliance

Terrance J. Fitzpatrick
President and CEO
Energy Association of Pennsylvania

Lou D’Amico
President and Executive Director
PA Independent Oil &Gas Association

Stephanie Catarino Wissman
Executive Director
Associated Petroleum Industries of PA

Kevin Shivers
Executive Director
National Federation of Independent Businesses

Jacob Smeltz
President
Electric Power Generation Association

David Taylor
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association

John M. Becker
Executive Director
American Concrete Pavement Association
Pennsylvania Chapter

Duane Feagley
Executive Director
PA Anthracite Council

Now, we might imagine each of these folks waking up today to the overturning of Act 13 and experiencing an epiphany about the significance of clean air and water--but I doubt it. In fact, what I predict is that they'll double down in the effort to get SB 1576 passed ASAP as a rearguard defense against the people of the Commonwealth--but in favor of the industry that fills their pockets.

Clues to the strength of my prediction were on display at the Empire Beauty School hearing in Pottsville, 8.26.13:

Consider the comments of William J. Parulis of the PA Anthracite Council and owner of WJP Engineers (www.wjpengineers.com/index.php/about-us/william-j-parulis/) who argued that environmental restoration efforts made by the coal industry were actually impeded by the onerous requirements imposed by an endangered species act that actually protected endangered species. In effect, he argued, protecting endangered species was bad for the environment! This is, of course, just another way of saying that environmental protections--including protections for endangered species--are bad for the industrialized extraction industry.

Seriously.

But if we think that Parulis' logic is contorted, we might consider Rep. Pyle's. As reported by Sean Kitchen of Raging Chicken Press (8.27.13):

Representative Pyle claimed that he authored the bill because of a government shakedown against his school district during a renovation project that affected the habitat of the Indiana bat. The school district paid $61,800 to the Indiana Bat Fund and the donation was 0.1 percent of the total budgeted project. At the same time of these events, John Stilley’s – Representative Pyle’s largest campaign contributor – company, Amerikohl Mining, filed a lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services for a $316,000 donation to the Indiana Bat Fund. (http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2013/08/27/breaking-oil-and-gas-industry-writes-letter-in-support-of-endangered-species-destruction-act/).

In other words, Rep. Pyle's motives are, by his own admission, retributive and explicitly consistent with his "largest campaign contributor" Amerikohl Mining.

But Rep. Pyle is not alone in his penchant for graft and corruption.

Here is the list of PA state senators who co-sponsored HB 1576/SB 1047, and the campaign donations they received from the gas industry:

Brubaker $7,900.00
Kasunic $33,500.00
Waugh $3,750.00
Yudichak $6,025.00
Erickson $5,900.00
Rafferty $5,350.00
D. White $94,150.00
Hutchinson $16,350.00
Fontana $3,100.00
Scarnati $359,145.72
Mensch $3,000.00
Gordner $3,800.00
Tartaglione ----
Brewster ----

TOTAL = $522,520.72 in direct gas industry campaign contributions.

Here is the list of PA house supporters:

Pyle $48,961.68
Gergely $13,900.00
Kaufman $1,950.00
Jay Costa $21,850.00
Bloom $648.00
Helm $1,050.00
Harhai $19,800.00
Rapp $3,650.00
Goodman $500.00
Cutler $900.00
Gibbons $3,350.00
Marshall $2,800.00
Harris $1,920.00
Reed $137,532.33 (the winner in the house)

Pickett $7,050.00
Everett $3,590.00
Keller $2,150.00
Swanger $600.00
Knowles $450.00
Metcalfe $40,850.00
Dunbar $4,400.00
Sonney $550.00
Grove $950.00
Krieger $7,450.00
Reese $1,800.00
Stevenson $13,850.00
Neuman $7,800.00
Sankey ----
Causer $7,500.00
Saccone $4,000.00
Rock ----
Godshall $11,000.00

Tobash $250.00
Murt ----
Brown $4,500.00
Paul Costa $4,150.00
Davis ----
Burns $470.00
Daley $7,150.00
English ----
Tallman $250.00
Baker $11,200.00
Barrar $1,200.00
Christiana $7,250.00
Ellis $35,150.00
Evankovich $5,600.00
Kortz $2,850.00
James ----
Kula $1,475.00
Major $6,800.00
Metzgar $1,000.00
Moul ----
Mustio $9,175.00
Oberlander $3,525.00
Toohil $375.00
Snyder ----
Pashinski $1,775.00
Readshaw $4,350.00
Roae ----
Saylor $11,250.00.

TOTAL = $489,022.01 in direct gas industry campaign contributions. That does not include campaign contributions from the coal industry, the factory farm industry, the commercial construction, or any of the ancillary industries that are connected to these industries, or by industry lobbyists and representatives under their own names.

The thing is, this is all pretty predictable.

What's more troubling--and must, I think, keep us from thinking that the overturning of Act 13 is cause for celebrating more than a day is this: despite the fact that the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission both joined Rep Greg Vitali in opposing SB 1576, the latter's director John Arway nonetheless concedes to the gas industry the essential violation of the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution:

Arway continued, "As I told the committees in September, we are not the obstacle to development that some have claimed us to be. It takes our staff an average of 30 days to complete Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) reviews in general, with Marcellus reviews averaging less than 20 days and PennDOT reviews averaging less than 15 days. In addition, it is significant to note that of the 16,600 PNDI searches in 2012, only 124, or less than 1 percent, resulted in surveys being requested by our agency. We take our responsibility of advising business, individuals, and other agencies seriously, and we know that the best way to do our jobs is by being as cooperative and timely as possible. "Indeed, our commitment to work with industry is not new. As part of the Natural Heritage Partnership, our staff have been carefully working to develop mapping areas that show the habitat needs of rare species with the ultimate goal of getting the information into the hands of developers early in their decision-making process so they can plan their projects better - saving everyone time and money while protecting the species we are entrusted to conserve." (http://www.timesobserver.com/page/content.detail/id/567830/Endangered-species-bill-contentious.html).

This is pro-frack double speak if ever there was. While, on the one hand, Arway insists that the science should govern decision-making about what to classify as an endangered species, on the other, he insists that fracking can be done safely. State Rep. Rick Mirabito, D-Lycoming, makes the point explicitly, pointing out that "the legislation flies in the face of the legislature's constitutional requirement to protect the environment" (http://www.timesobserver.com/page/content.detail/id/567830/Endangered-species-bill-contentious.html).

"We have an obligation to protect the environment," Mirabito said. "It's not a choice; it's an obligation. It's a civil right for the people of Pennsylvania."

The very idea that fracking can be conducted without serious and potentially devastating consequences for sensitive ecologies flies directly in the face of the science which shows to the contrary--particularly given the long term effects for ecologies, including their compliment of species, of climate change.

Mr. Arway cannot not know this. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is that he's opted for what I have called the concession rhetoric of the "middle ground":

The truth can be counted on to lay somewhere in “the middle,” where “the middle” is invariably some “compromise” between opposing factions, and where “everyone” can feel good that their interests have been met more or less in that “middle.” This “truth” via consensus can then be promoted as “reasonable,” and “just” and anyone who seeks to counter it with opposing facts or a challenge to its reasoning can be cast as irrational, an extremist—even a terrorist if they persist in pointing out evidence contrary to “the middle ground” or to the “consensus” alleged in its defense. (http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2013/10/sustainable-shale-development-middle.html).

The trouble with this form of reasoning, I argued, is that

truth is entirely independent of the interests of any party. Truth doesn’t care whether folks get their way. Truth is not the product of consensus. Truth is what is supported by an objective evaluation of the facts where the facts have been presented honestly—without exaggeration, cherry-picking, or other distortion—and where evaluation steers clear of fallacious, biased, or interested “reasoning.” Truth does not present itself to us for approval. When the facts do not support what we want to believe, we should change our minds—even if it’s hard. And that’s it.

So as we rightly and raucously celebrate the reaffirmation of the rights of Pennsylvanians to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and enjoy the state's immense ecological beauty, let's also reaffirm our commitment to insist that our representatives abide the Constitution, and that those appointed to be stewards of the environment do their jobs.

Or--better--let's offer very loud and very public memory to this fact:

While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did make the right call this time, legislation in clear violation of human rights and the rights of ecosystems themselves becomes law far too often. That Act 13, HB 1576, and so many other frack-friendly bills even get out of committee (even get out of the gas-fueled heads of their writers) provides clear evidence that the law itself is drafted for the benefit not of the people, but for the industry. As The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) shows, the history of property and rights in the United States is one which consistently empowers corporations at the expense of communities and individuals.

So, with this in mind, let's get ready for a new year--a 2014 dedicated to re-empowering communities consistent with the right to an environment--to a planet-- not merely sustainable--but the one our grandchildren will leave behind as the most beautiful in the universe.

Wendy Lynne Lee
Shale Justice

Education Matters More Than Money: The APSCUF Anti-Extraction Resolution

After considerable protracted debate over a long Summer, the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculty—APSCUF—decisively passed by a vote of 68-31 a position statement with respect to SB 367—the PA Frack U Bill—and more generally the state university union’s position with respect to hydraulic fracturing—fracking—on state university properties.

It had been nearly a year since the “indigenous mineral resource development” bill had been debated and passed as Act 147 investing university presidents with the authority to decide whether a fracking—or coal, or oil—mining operation can proceed on Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) campuses—including campus quads, outside classroom windows, next to sports fields, or wherever else the industry determines is the most expeditious location for a drill head, a compressor station, a waste hauler parking lot, or pipeline (http://legiscan.com/PA/text/SB367/id/648399).

The text of the position statement reads as follows:

A motion was advanced to LA [Legislative Assembly] in April 2013 stating: Therefore, be it resolved, EUP Legislative Assembly delegates request the executive council to develop a position statement opposing fracking on Pennsylvania State System Properties. This motion will return to the floor at the pending LA in September.

The ad hoc committee, by majority, supports the position that PASSHE campuses are not appropriate locations for hydraulic fracturing (fracking), that given the environmental and health hazards of the fracking process, including all of its infrastructure and associated enterprises, its presence on PASSHE campuses is inconsistent and potentially deleterious to the PASSHE educational mission as well as to the health and welfare of PASSHE community members. A growing body of research is beginning to quantify and characterize the negative environmental, societal, economic, and ecological impacts on those close to such activities. Local impacts include but are not limited to gas migration, air pollution, and surface and near-surface water quality degradation as well as potential chronic impacts to air, water, landscapes, habitat, and ecosystems. Soeder (2012, Shale gas development in the United States) states, “Having one of these sites near a home, school or business can be distracting, inconvenient, annoying, and disruptive.” Moreover, APSCUF opposes SB 367–the Indigenous Mineral Resources Development Act–as inconsistent with the PASSHE education mission for the same reasons and because it effectively pits some PASSHE campuses against others for revenue which could accrue to the permitting of fracking operations on PASSHE lands. Such potential competition, or implementation of SB 367 in any form, could accelerate the presence of such operations–including pipeline construction, compressor infrastructure, waste management, heavy industrial truck traffic, and thereby increase exposure to pollution and hazards for members of PASSHE communities. Lastly, APSCUF takes a position against a PASSHE contribution to climate change, as induced by increased greenhouse gas emissions, as this is also inconsistent with a mission committed to the educations and welfare of future citizens of the Commonwealth.

Although the committee supports this position and acknowledges potential negative impacts to our campuses by on-campus drilling, a subset of committee members posed an alternative viewpoint that APSCUF should not offer a position on this issue but allow individual PASSHE universities to act independently in response to implementing the Act. Concern was expressed that issuing a position to oppose on-campus drilling would be viewed as a condemnation of the entire industry, a viewpoint not universally shared within the committee.

To fully appreciate the meaning of what may be the first union position taken on fracking in the Commonwealth, it’s useful to make brief review of the history, the motives, and the corruption that attended Act 147. In addition to Dory Hippauf’s fine piece “Welcome to PA Frack-U” (Welcome to PA FRACK-U), I laid out the argument against SB 367 in an October 2012 RCP piece, “The Industrialization of PASSHE” The Industrialization of PASSHE: Where the Public Good, its Students, and its Faculty are Auctioned Off to the Extraction Profiteers (Or: Extortion by Extraction) | Raging Chicken Press):

It’s sponsor Donald C. White (R-41) is a direct gas industry beneficiary to the tune of $94,150.
White explicitly compares the opportunities for gas leasing made available in SB 367 on PASSHE properties to leasing Pennsylvania game and state forest lands. He insists that the bill does not require the state to lease or sell property rights—making those decisions the province of university presidents—but this is nothing but thinly veiled subterfuge given that
Governor Corbett has bludgeoned PASSHE budgets for the last three years such that pressure for university presidents to play ball with the gas industry to make up the short-fall is a virtual guarantee of their complicity, and
The comparison with other state lands like those currently under siege by the gas companies (for example, Loyalsock State Forest) only strengthens the claim that whatever rightly counts as the people’s land—state forest, state campuses, state game lands—is absolutely for sale by a corrupt state administration which acts as a revolving door and an employment agency for the industry (Fracking and the Revolving Door in Pennsylvania | Public Accountability Initiative).

Leasing PASSHE properties to the gas industry is just one part of the strategy to convert state universities in Pennsylvania into privatized and corporatized training depots and public relations offices for industry. Whether Big Energy, Big Pharma, or Big Food, the industrialization of PASSHE is consistent with Corbett administration ideology which makes higher education the prerogative of the very wealthy all the while consigning the children of the middle and lower classes to fill the jobs requisite to an industry that fills the pockets of Corbett appointments and allies. As I made clear during the APSCUF Legislative Assembly, 9.20.13, SB 367 is manifestly inconsistent with the mission of any university: “The notion that a campus with active drill rigs competing for space with libraries, quads, and classrooms is conducive to learning, that a frack-operation is consistent with the atmosphere necessary to the free exchange of ideas, is absurd on its face.” This is true for at least three reasons:

1. The presence of a frack operation or any of its infrastructure is inconsistent with the health and welfare of the university community. The potential for carcinogen exposure, methane leak, explosion, noise, heavy industrial truck trafiic, etc. should make any parent taking the tour of a PASSHE campus think twice about sending their son or daughter to a PASSHE school.

2. The creation of university/industry “partnerships” can compromise the integrity of entire departments and programs. “Research bearing the imprimatur of Penn State, University of Texas at Austin, and University of Buffalo, for example, have all come under fire for “research” demonstrably biased to industry interests, for ignoring environmental and health concerns, and for failing to disclose their financing.” Closer to home, consider “A three group panel” discussing “environmental and operational safety of drilling for Marcellus shale natural gas” at PASSHE’s Slippery Rock University (SRU). The panelists included “health and safety manager at Advanced Waste Services Sean Decristoforo, vice president for safety and environment of Range Resources Ralph Tijerina, and James Daley, director of natural gas and energy programs of Greenhouse and Omara Inc. The mediator was Anthony Cialella, vice president for energy services for Advanced Waste Services”—all pro-fracking, all industry beneficiaries. Moreover, one of the attendees, Professor Patrick Burkhart, Geoscience SRU and committee chair for the APSCUF committee charged with drafting the APSCUF position statement on fracking insisted with respect to frack-related water pollution that “you cannot define dirty until you define clean,” and that “environmental issues are demand driven” (The Rocket : Local shale fracking under question) implying—as he reiterated at APSCUF Delegate Assembly—that economic circumstance ought to determine environmental policy—on PASSHE properties.

3. We teach our students a deeply immoral lesson about the value of human life and the integrity of the planet’s ecology when we allow operations whose contribution to water destruction, air pollution, forest fragmentation, and climate change to proceed on campus—as if our only value for their futures is as cogs in that machine.

SB 367, however, is just one piece in a suite of perverse legislations threatening to undermine not only the ecologies upon which we all depend, but the democracy we still pretend to value. SB 259/HB 1414 allows old gas and oil leases to be revived by drillers unless there is explicit language in the old lease forbidding it—and of course, there won’t be since fracking is a new technology (‎‎naro-us.org/Resources/NARO%20PA/PA%20Legislative/Here’s%20What%20NARO-PA%20has%20to%20say%20about%20SB%20259.pdf). The bill opens the door to forced pooling in a fashion called “sleazy” even by some in favor of drilling. SB 1047/HB 15756 effectively guts the states endangered species act making access to habitat otherwise off limits to drillers available to natural gas extraction (Endangered Species Act Proposed Changes: HB 1576 & SB 1047 | Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs). HB 1717 would “force DCNR to lease another 300,000 of state forest and park land for gas drilling, and direct the money to PennDOT to repair bridges” (http://birding.aba.org/message.php?mesid=505993&MLID=PA01&MLNM=Pennsylvania).

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. As I pointed out at APSCUF Delegate Assembly, once the export gas terminals at places like Cove Point Maryland come on line, the industrialization we have seen in Pennsylvania to date will look like a trip to Disney World—100,000 wells, twenty-two possible export depots from Maine to Oregon, their pipeline, their compressors, and their waste—will look more like Zombie Apocalypse than ‘It’s a Small World After All.”

All of this brings me finally to some observations about the potential Democrat party candidacy of former DEP head John Hanger who promises—with a straight face—that he will see to it that regulation will make fracking safe and natural gas cheap.

Indeed, he has duped some in the anti-fracking movement to his platform with promises that he’ll make right the wrongs they have suffered. But it is a small world after all. Besides the fact that there simply is no making right the permanent destruction of water, the generation of the conditions for cancer, and the erosion of the rural social fabric, Hanger epitomizes the perverse lie that it is possible to regulate a catastrophe in progress. Given that the regulations are themselves drafted by the very industry that benefits from no regulation at all, “regulate” can mean nothing other than “business-as-usual-concealed-with-a-bit-of green-wash.” And that is Hanger’s pitch for the development of energy alternatives—green wash. Not because he might not really mean that he’d like to see us move beyond fossil fuels, but because he has already conceded cheerily that we won’t and can’t—and he doesn’t really care. After all, if he did, he’d support the Democratic Party’s moratorium resolution—and he doesn’t. He calls it unrealistic—as if “realistic” were an acceptable concession to death-by-fracking.

So here we have another resolution with which a candidate for governor disagrees—the first Pennsylvania public union’s resolution to resist fracking operations on PASSHE properties. The value of such a resolution is not—to be really realistic—in its capacity to keep fracking off PASSHE campuses. It will not. It’s value lay in its bearing witness—when the trucks roll down our rural roads onto our campus quads, our students will know that we said NO to this egregious intrusion into their futures. Its value lay in its capacity as a tool for fomenting the only thing that will bring to an end a catastrophe that hasn’t really even begun—and won’t until pipeline and export depot are ready to begin the trans-ocean transports of frack gas to China and Japan and India. That thing is called a “revolution,” and it begins in the only place it can: every conscience of every thinking person who sees through the game of “regulation,” and recognizes that like all games of Russian Roulette, Regulation Roulette ends up with a bullet to the head—in this case that of our collective future.

So—it is a small world. But it is bigger than, say, Dimock, and it is bigger than any single college campus, and it is bigger than Pennsylvania. But it is not bigger than the shale deposits whose mining for gas represents the last gasp of a fatal addiction—and that is a world grown smaller by the day.

Response to Professor Anthony Ingraffea’s “Gangplank to a Warm Future.”

In his excellent 7.28.13, New York Times Op-Ed, Gangplank to a Warm Future – NYTimes.com, Cornell Profesoor Anthony Ingraffea argued that

MANY concerned about climate change, including President Obama, have embraced hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. In his recent climate speech, the president went so far as to lump gas with renewables as “clean energy.”

As a longtime oil and gas engineer who helped develop shale fracking techniques for the Energy Department, I can assure you that this gas is not “clean.” Because of leaks of methane, the main component of natural gas, the gas extracted from shale deposits is not a “bridge” to a renewable energy future — it’s a gangplank to more warming and away from clean energy investments.

Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it doesn’t last nearly as long in the atmosphere. Still, over a 20-year period, one pound of it traps as much heat as at least 72 pounds of carbon dioxide. Its potency declines, but even after a century, it is at least 25 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. When burned, natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, but methane leakage eviscerates this advantage because of its heat-trapping power.

And methane is leaking, though there is significant uncertainty over the rate. But recent measurements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at gas and oil fields in California, Colorado and Utah found leakage rates of 2.3 percent to 17 percent of annual production, in the range my colleagues at Cornell and I predicted some years ago. This is the gas that is released into the atmosphere unburned as part of the hydraulic fracturing process, and also from pipelines, compressors and processing units. Those findings raise questions about what is happening elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued new rules to reduce these emissions, but the rules don’t take effect until 2015, and apply only to new wells.

A 2011 study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research concluded that unless leaks can be kept below 2 percent, gas lacks any climate advantage over coal. And a study released this May by Climate Central, a group of scientists and journalists studying climate change, concluded that the 50 percent climate advantage of natural gas over coal is unlikely to be achieved over the next three to four decades. Unfortunately, we don’t have that long to address climate change — the next two decades are crucial.

To its credit, the president’s plan recognizes that “curbing emissions of methane is critical.” However, the release of unburned gas in the production process is not the only problem. Gas and oil wells that lose their structural integrity also leak methane and other contaminants outside their casings and into the atmosphere and water wells. Multipleindustry studies show that about 5 percent of all oil and gas wells leak immediately because of integrity issues, with increasing rates of leakage over time. With hundreds of thousands of new wells expected, this problem is neither negligible nor preventable with current technology.

Why do so many wells leak this way? Pressures under the earth, temperature changes, ground movement from the drilling of nearby wells and shrinkage crack and damage the thin layer of brittle cement that is supposed to seal the wells. And getting the cement perfect as the drilling goes horizontally into shale is extremely challenging. Once the cement is damaged, repairing it thousands of feet underground is expensive and often unsuccessful. The gas and oil industries have been trying to solve this problem for decades.

The scientific community has been waiting for better data from the E.P.A. to assess the extent of the water contamination problem. That is why it is so discouraging that, in the face of industry complaints, the E.P.A. reportedly has closed or backed away from several investigations into the problem. Perhaps a full E.P.A. study of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, due in 2014, will be more forthcoming. In addition, drafts of an Energy Department study suggest that there are huge problems finding enough water for fracturing future wells. The president should not include this technology in his energy policy until these studies are complete.

We have renewable wind, water, solar and energy-efficiency technology options now. We can scale these quickly and affordably, creating economic growth, jobs and a truly clean energy future to address climate change. Political will is the missing ingredient. Meaningful carbon reduction is impossible so long as the fossil fuel industry is allowed so much influence over our energy policies and regulatory agencies. Policy makers need to listen to the voices of independent scientists while there is still time.

Anthony R. Ingraffea is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Cornell University and the president of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, a nonprofit group.

The striking thing about Professor Ingraffea’s remarks is that, despite the fact that the science clearly shows the causal connection between methane emissions and climate change, there yet remain nay-sayers not only in the industry but among environmental organizations large and small and in the Obama administration.

It might be easy to describe this as an extreme form of denial, but as I argued recently in “Of Aristotle and Anadarko: Why Better Laws Will Never Be Enough” (Of Aristotle and Anadarko: Why “Better Laws” Will Never be Enough), it’s more:

To deny an obvious evil in the name of “moderation,” “compromise,” “maturity,” or even “compassion” is to at least concede to it.

To continue to deny, deflect, down-play, diminish that evil in the face of yet more and consistent evidence is to engage in collusion.

To collude knowingly with that evil all the while claiming the mantle of reason is a form of dishonesty worthy of contempt–and stalwart resistance.

It’s not surprising, of course, that Big Energy would ignore, deflect, and deny global warming. After all, their entire profit-driven gig depends on extracting every last bit of fossil energy from the shale–and apparently at virtually any cost–even into the bottom of the Arctic Ocean’s permafrost (Scientists Envision Fracking in Arctic and on Ocean Floor – WSJ.com).

It’s not even surprising (at least anymore) that government at every level has become corrupted by the lure of the money and the associated power of an industry whose legacy of environmental damage, community destruction, and grotesque economic exploitation of the world’s most vulnerable people seems to know no bounds (“Most Wanted” | Global Exchange). From the politics of a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that functions as nothing but a revolving door for industry aspirants (http://public-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/Fracking-and-the-Revolving-Door-in-Pennsylvania.pdf), to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that’s clearly willing to exchange human health for industry access (Should frackers investigate themselves?), we have very little reason to believe that our elected representatives are watching our backs–or our water, or air, or soil. This was made starkly clear at Penn College, July 26th, 2013 at the “Bipartisan Natural Gas Caucus’” “field hearing” during which elected representatives took advantage of the opportunity to question natural gas representatives and business-persons from associated industries.

Except that the questions were clearly intended only to highlight the “jobs” argument for continuing natural gas development. There was no provision for public comment–in plain violation of the PA-State Sunshine Act (http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/deskbook06/Issues_Citizens_Rights_02_Pa_Sunshine_Act.pdf), and there transpired not a word of critical inquiry in the day-long proceeding. Indeed, this was not a hearing at all. It was an orchestrated theatrical performance to propagandize for fracking and all of its associated industries under the guise of “good government,” and “public accountability.” I don’t know that I have ever witnessed a more cynical abuse of the public trust. But little surprises me these days–including the use of tax-payers dollars to make commercials for Big Global Gas.

Professor Ingraffea’s criticism of the Obama administration is right on the money. We have alternatives. With thoughtful planning, some creativity, and significant conservation, we can scale them to fulfill our energy needs. What we lack is political will. And no wonder given the privatizing and whole-sale corporatizing of government. As I argued in “Obama’s Big Fake Climate Change Speech and the Big Fake greens Who Loved It” (Obama’s Big Fake Climate Change Speech and the Big Fake Environmental Organizations Who Loved It), President Obama seems to have bought hook, line, and sinker the wholly specious “jobs argument.” Indeed, other than the fact that Obama is African American, he would have fit right in at the fake hearing at Penn College. And that is not a trivial point: white, male, affluent, Western. What we see reflected in the rhetoric of the Obama administration, in state government like Tom Corbett’s, and throughout state and federal congress is the worldview of what I have Called the “Good Old Boy Extraction Club,” a not-so-new patriarchy that rewards the same players at the expense of social justice and environmental integrity (YouTube: The Good Ole’ Boy Extraction Club: The Pseudo-Patriotic and Pervasively Patriarchal Culture of Hydraulic Fracturing (Why Breast Cancer is the Canary in the Fracking Coal Mine). My point, however, is not that Professor Ingraffea ought to have gone in this direction, but that regardless this history, regardless our absurdly distorted concession to “property rights” when they’re the industry’s, even regardless how easy or difficult it might be to make the transition to clean fuel sources, the writing is on the wall: methane emissions contribute substantially to climate change. That’s it. The end. We cannot even sort of afford this.

So, it’s not just striking that any environmental organization applauds President Obama’s industry-concilliatory tone on climate change, but that there’s anyone left who does not see that demanding anything other than a ban on all forms of extreme extraction–fracking, mountain top removal, and tar sands extraction, and all of their associated hydro-carbon emitting industries, is behaving in a fashion that is willfully daft. In light of the facts as Ingraffea lays them out, the very idea of “responsible drilling” is not merely oxymoronic, it must be interpreted as “pro-drilling.” As I spelled out in “Of Aristotle and Anadarko,” any organization that claims that so long as studies are done, “better laws” are crafted, “best practices” are observed and permits are granted only after review, drilling may then proceed is pro-drilling. And not just pro-drilling-under-the-right-circumstances. It is Pro. Drilling.

Why?

Because every one of these organizations knows that “better laws” and “best practices” is code for industry-drafted legislation like Act 13 (Act 13 | DEP > Oil and Gas), SB 258/HB1414 (http://legiscan.com/PA/text/SB259/id/868925/Pennsylvania-2013-SB259-Amended.pdf), SB 367 (The Industrialization of PASSHE: Where the Public Good, its Students, and its Faculty are Auctioned Off to the Extraction Profiteers (Or: Extortion by Extraction), and SB 1047 (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2013&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=1047&pn=1327)–just to name a tiny few. We all know, in other words, that there is no way to frack better. More profitably, maybe. But the cost is precisely what Professor Ingraffea says is is: climate change–and a world of hurt that goes with it.

Because every one of these organizations knows that the effort to ameliorate the industry’s massive and growing damage is a bandaid on a gushing gut wound.

Because pretending to care about the future all the while pandering to the corporatist oligarchs of the present is hypocrisy.

Because “finding middle ground” with an enemy who understands you as naught but an inconvenience and an obstacle is not substantively different than the actions of the Vichy Government of France who tried to find “middle ground” with the NAZIs in a pathetic bid to save itself (The French Vichy Regime | Jewish Virtual Library). We all know how that turned out–a dark and embarrassing blight on French history. When Professor Ingraffea claims that “[t]he president should not include this technology [fracking] in his energy policy until these studies are complete,” he says it with the confidence that once complete, the studies will point clearly in the direction of a ban. In the mean time, he strongly defends the moratorium protecting New Yorkers from at least some of the environmental, health, and community devastation that’s converted Pennsylvania from a gorgeous destination for eco-tourists into Terry Engelder’s “sacrifice zone.” Hence, we must conclude that Professor Ingraffea is confident that such studies will only lend further credence to the argument for a ban.

And that’s it.

There is no negotiating over the surface rights for Anadarko in Loyalsock State Forest. There is no way to clean up the polluted wells in Dimock. There is no restoration of the Arboreal Forests lost to Alberta. There is no safe uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. There is no economic justice for Native Americans in the Dakotas. There is no making right the travesty of Riverdale. There is no return of the Northern Flying Squirrel once it’s driven out of Pennsylvania’s last contiguous forests now fragmented by truck roads and frack equipment parking lots. There is no fixing lost property values for farmers whose land and water is permanently destroyed. There is no fixing asthma. There is no fixing a breast cancer mastectomy.

Here’s my first crazy claim: human rights trump property rights.

Here’s my second crazy claim: the rights of living things to the conditions necessary to preserve life

and flourish in healthy ecological systems trump property rights too.

There is no protecting the rights of human beings and other living organisms without the reasonable limitiation of the property rights. “Reasonable,” however, in the case of extreme industrialized extraction means “ban it now.” It means that the “property rights” of faux-persons called “corporations” must take a far back seat to the rights of people, and their children, and the water, air and soil upon which it all depends.

Ban industrialized extraction now.

Anything else is subterfuge.

http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2013/07/30/response-to-professor-anthony-ingraffeas-gangplank-to-a-warm-future/