I write to request that DEC address the following concerns as part of its revision of the draft SGEIS.

Dear Commissioner Martens,

I write to request that DEC address the following concerns as part of its revision of the draft SGEIS.

There is a monumental disconnect between what leased landowners think they are signed up for, and what they are actually about to experience. That is because the landmen do not tell them. They don't tell them the hazards. They don't tell them the best practices. They don't tell them what their neighbors will have to endure. Why? Because the guidelines aren't even written yet!

To me this seems like a clear case of fraudulent claims. How can you, in good faith, enter into a contract for which you have no reliable details? I am aware that these landmen have used extremely underhanded tactics to persuade landowners to sign leases, and I know that many landowners have contacted the state attorney general to complain. Until the facts of the drilling process are known there is no way citizens can make informed decisions on what the impacts will be.

This process has been done backwards. This has occurred for one reason only, and that is because high volume horizontal hydrofracking with 'long laterals' is dangerous to health, dangerous to the prosperity of other businesses, and dangerous to the land and water and air where it takes place. How else to even get it started, than to obtain the rights first, and then define the rules later?

I know that it is not your job to address this issue of fraudulent claims. But it should be front and center in your mind, that when the document which regulates gas extraction is finally ready, it should be clear and easy for landowners to review, to establish exactly what potential harms and changes they, and their neighbors, will experience, so they (and their attorneys) can make an informed decision.

So what should be in the document? It should insure the safety and peace of mind of those who live in drilling areas and downstream, those who never wanted drilling to occur. In my opinion this cannot possibly be done. Where I live and conduct my organic farming operations, (powered by grid connected solar) the weather pattern often allows for a thick mist over our little valley for many hours, sometimes days at a time. My neighbors have leased with surface rights, and I am concerned about the ability of this 'valley mist' to hold and concentrate the noxious and toxic airborne contaminants associated with drilling operations, both during development and production. You cannot change the weather.

Another area I have read about, and believe is a potent problem, is radioactivity in the Marcellus Shale. Please note that I say 'potent' problem, not 'potential' problem. Radioactivity is way out of your range to control or mitiigate. Below I note the conclusions to a radioactivity report prepared by Marvin Resnikoff, and dated May 2010. It was prepared for 'residents for the preservation of Lowman and Chemung', who commissioned it to supplement another, less detailed report by Fotuna Energy. I have also attached the full report to this email.

Conclusions:

1. The hazard associated with the disposal of incompletely dewatered Marcellus shale drill cuttings
and drilling fluid in a municipal landfill has not been fully evaluated by NYSDEC. The Marcellus
shale has elevated radioactive concentrations, approximately 25-30 times above background
concentrations. The drilling and dewatering processes enhance the concentration of radium in
the drilling fluid. Rock cuttings that hold up to 20% of this fluid are still considered solid waste
and will be disposed of in the County landfill. The introduction of this radioactive material into the
landfill will give rise to serious problems due to the generation of radon, radiologically
contaminated leachate and to potential reuse of the site in the future. NYSDEC regulations
regarding the radiation doses from a decommissioned site and the allowable concentrations of
radium in soil will be exceeded. In our opinion, these radioactive rock cuttings and associated
radioactive drilling fluids belong in a radioactive landfill, such as the Envirocare landfill in Clive,

2. Major uncertainties have not been resolved. The findings of the CoPhysics report conflict with
borehole gamma readings and with the independent measurements of the USGS. The CoPhysics
report does not explain where the cuttings were found and processed. The measurement
methodology, EPA 701.1, and the use of a surrogate Bi-214 to measure Ra-226 are not
appropriate for this case.

3. Worker exposure to radioactivity at the working face of a landfill that disposes such waste can be
expected to exceed health-base dose limits set by EPA and NRC.

4. The waste at issue can be generated only by means of industrial processes in two gross phases:
(a) fluids with chemical additives are forced into subterranean shale formations under high
pressure, where they leach out NORM, making the fluids much more radioactive than they were
before injection; solid waste is generated from the return waste water only by means of another
set of industrial processes, including a shale shaker, centrifuge, and perhaps other mechanisms.

5. The drilling fluids that provide the source for the solid waste are chemically changed by
pressurized contact with NORM, concentrating the NORM in the fluids. For example, barium is
added to drilling mud pumped into a horizontal wellbore in order to extract radium sulfate from
cuttings. This solid may be disposed of with the rock cuttings.

6. Based on RESRAD calculations, the radiation exposures received by a future resident farmer will
exceed allowable regulatory limits. The radium concentrations in soil will exceed EPA regulatory
limits. NYSDEC has not examined the environmental and health and safety implications of
disposing of shale cuttings in a solid waste landfill. In our opinion, the radioactive scale cuttings
and fluids are more appropriately deposited in a radioactive landfill designed for this disposal.

Both the weather issue and the radioactivity issue are problems which will have bearing not in snapshot moments, but in the long run, the cumulative impact of months and years of exposure to those of us living in the Marcellus and downwind/downstream. I want to point out, that for this reason, your work has not led to a document ready to regulate gas development. Instead, it is work which proves that the dangers (known and unknown) of gas drilling are not fixable. This work has been worthwhile, in fact crucial to us who live in New York state. But you cannot present it as regulation, because it is not.

Further research, by those in other fields, have brought us in June of 2011 to a point of reckoning vis a vis natural gas. It seems quite clear to me, that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, economic havoc of boom and bust cycles, intent to sell LNG on global markets, and diversion of subsidies from sustainable fuels, that natural gas is not the answer the industry has promised us. It is not a 'greener' fuel. It is not an economic fix for our area. It is not 'patriotic'.

It's a money making scheme, for those involved. It stands in the way of a truer version of energy sustainability, and must be avoided. Consider this statement from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman explaining why New York is suing federal agencies to slow the rush to allow drilling: "Before any decisions on drilling are made, it is our responsibility to follow the facts and understand the public health and safety effects posed by potential natural gas development." Teddy Roosevelt would approve, as would Richard Nixon and others who understood that nature only comes around once, that those who live on the Earth have a responsibility to it, that an ounce of regulation is worth a ton of pollution.

Subsidies and tax breaks for the oil, gas, and nuclear energy industries have led to a dangerous and unsustainable dependence on fossil and nuclear fuels, and the sooner we transfer those subsidies to renewable energy, the better. A 1998 study by Greenpeace entitled "Fueling Global Warming: Federal Tax Subsidies to Oil in the U.S." found that there were between $5 billion and $35 billion in annual subsidies to oil companies in the U.S. depending on how one makes the calculation and hence whether or not one includes such things as U.S. grants to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and other less visible oil-related subsidies.
 
Here is a key citation from the 1998 Greenpeace report: "The oil companies continue to argue that...clean power solutions are not viable in the near to mid-term. The viability of these energy alternatives must be evaluated taking into consideration the $5 to $35 billion in annual subsidies to oil documented in this study, as well as the billions in additional support flowing to other fossil fuels in the U.S. and abroad."
 
On a global scale there are over $400 billion in annual subsidies given by governments to the coal, oil, and natural gas industries, the three principal carbon fuel industries listed here in the order of their respective carbon footprints per net unit of energy. When one includes the global subsidies to the nuclear power industry, this figure rises to over $600 billion annually that is currently being allowed to foster global warming, global climate change, air pollution, the undermining of public health, unconscionable strip mining, the spilling of oil at sea, mercury poisoning, as well as the next Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima.
 
Ecologists should not be blindly following the Obama administration line on this issue, but rather should be calling for an end to ALL tax subsidies, whether state or federal, to carbon fuels and to nuclear power, including to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which U.S. oil companies, not the American tax payer, should be paying to maintain during our ongoing yet calamitously slow transition to a fully renewable global energy system.
 
Despite the current level of government subsidies that are being given to both the carbon fuel and atomic power industries, geothermal electrical production in the U.S. is already significantly less expensive than electricity generated by either coal or nuclear power, which are currently the two most important sources of electrical production in the U.S. and around the world. Onshore wind is also a less expensive source of electricity than either coal or nuclear power yet U.S. and international subsidies are being allowed to distort the overall price structure of the current global energy market.
 
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States potentially has 140,000 times the amount of geothermal energy that it would need to power the entire U.S. at the level of our current electrical demand. What is more, three states alone, Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota, have a sufficient amount of wind resources to power the entire U.S., without even taking into account the ample remainder of onshore wind resources that are available in the other states in the "U.S. Wind Corridor" extending from the north of Texas to the upper Midwest.
 
If the U.S were sourcing its electricity from these cheaper renewable sources----geothermal and onshore wind----then oil could be replaced in our transportation system by 100% sustainably sourced electricity that could, at the same time, run all of our cars, buses, trucks, and trains.

Thank you for your serious and unbiased consideration of these important issues which will affect us all in coming years. Again, I want to stress that your work surrounding natural gas regulation has not been in vain. It has allowed time to pass while other critical information could be gathered. It has allowed for new studies to be initiated, which will further inform the debate. But I believe this is a dead end street, and that NY is not the place for natural gas to be harvested.

Sincerely,
Gay G