Cave Spring Mayor Rob Ware (from left), Councilmember Peggy Allgood and City Attorney Zach Burkhalter discuss the possibility of natural gas drilling near their city. Ware told council members at Thursday’s work session that Forestar, a Texas-based company, is looking at drilling some 10 miles northwest of Cave Spring. (Alan Riquelmy, RN-T.com)
Cave Spring Mayor Rob Ware discussed at a Thursday council work session the possibility of Forestar, a Texas-based company, drilling about 10 miles northwest of the city. Residents had previously expressed fear over contaminating the area’s water supply, and Ware met Wednesday with Floyd County leaders about Forestar’s plans.
“Nothing has been approved,” Ware said Thursday. “Their request has been sent back for further information.”
State approval is the first step, which is where Forestar’s plans currently sit, Ware said. However, Forestar must also gain approval from the Rome-Floyd Planning Commission. That’s where the mayor suggested Cave Spring officials would give their input.
The current zoning for the proposed drill site — in the area of Black’s Bluff and George roads — is agricultural/residential. It must be heavy industrial for drilling to occur, Ware said.
“Drilling is a non-permitted use in that area,” he added.
Ware also said at least 200 acres must be rezoned, otherwise it’s considered spot zoning.
If Forestar accomplished the rezoning, it would then appear before the Floyd County Commission for a special-use permit.
Ware said he knew of no contact Forestar had made with local officials.
“The county’s done all they can at this point,” he said.
In other matters, the council:
Discussed the issue of saying the Lord’s Prayer at council meetings. The council chose earlier this year to say the prayer, but tentatively agreed at its March work session to forego reciting it. City Attorney Zach Burkhalter said at that work session the council could say a prayer, though not one as specific as the Lord’s Prayer.
On Thursday Councilmember Peggy Allgood pointed out that there was no quorum at the previous work session. The council then unanimously voted to invite a representative from one of the town’s six churches to recite a prayer at each meeting.
Councilmembers present at the meeting were Allgood, Ken Landers and Nellie McCain.
Approved an alcohol license for Linde Wentz’s new restaurant, Linde Marie’s Steakhouse, which is scheduled to open April 17.
Responding to a question about her closing time, Wentz said she had no issue locking the doors at 10 p.m. Patrons already seated will be served, but Wentz will pour no alcohol after 10 p.m., she said.
"Contrary to the film [Gasland's] misleading claims, natural gas production is subject to federal, state and local regulations that cover everything from initial permits to well construction to water disposal."
1. There are NO local regulations in Floyd County governing natural gas production itself. There is a very generic surface mining ordinance.
2. It's at the state level (in Georgia the Environmental Protection Division) that government regulates and issues permits for oil exploration and drilling. The section of the Code of Georgia governing drilling is , O.C.G.A. § 12-4-40 -- O.C.G.A. § 12-4-53, the "Oil and Gas and Deep Drilling Act of 1975" (note the date of the act). It's pretty dry reading--I won't quote the thing here--but essentially you're trusting the EPD to protect the environment, with very few specific guidelines.
3. At the federal level, the EPA primarily provides oversight and does not issue permits. The EPA does not oppose natural gas exploration and drilling, but rather seeks to help protect the environment. From their website: "EPA is working with states and other key stakeholders to help ensure that natural gas extraction does not come at the expense of public health and the environment. The Agency's focus and obligations under the law are to provide oversight, guidance and, where appropriate, rulemaking that achieve the best possible protections for the air, water and land where Americans live, work and play. The Agency is investing in improving our scientific understanding of hydraulic fracturing, providing regulatory clarity with respect to existing laws, and using existing authorities where appropriate to enhance health and environmental safeguards." Source: http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
Once the EPA gets involved with a specific site, it's likely that state regulations have failed and there is severe damage to the environment.
Which brings me to my point. We think of risk vs. benefit. Benefits are concrete (usually in terms of dollars), while risk is hypothetical, abstract. It's more difficult to care about the possible than the real--in that respect, the Drill Baby Drill crowd resembles a gang of glue-sniffing teenagers, believing that there's no tomorrow. Maybe it would be clearer if we compared benefits not with risks but regret. If Floyd County loses its purest source of drinking water (and I'm not addressing damage to health and wildlife), how much will we regret it? You can't drink natural gas.
You can't stop this freight train. The company drilling the test wells owns the mineral rights. The zoning has nothing to do with this and is just dream a on the part of the so called powers in Cave Spring and Floyd County that think they can stop this company with zoning laws or ordinances. Their lawyers have already taken care of this before the wells are drilled. Floyd County lawyers know this already. The Mayor doesn't have a clue. He's just thinking out loud to show he's opposed.
Nor will the folks under the Gold Dome pass any law to protect a municipality (even if they wanted to, which they don't). They will say that such matters are the responsibility of local government. This also happened with 6 Mile.
The EPA cannot step in unless it is proven that the state did not do its job in permitting the drilling. Such intervention is highly unlikely and in any case would probably not happen in time to prevent drilling. When the EPA gets involved in a particular site unless there has been a violation, and that would be too late to protect the local environment.
If a significant reserve of natural gas is discovered, then (much as I'd like to prevent it) there WILL be drilling. My goal here is to make sure everyone knows that during the permitting stage, the public needs to let the Georgia EPD know that they must be diligent in stipulating the conditions of the drilling so that the local environment is protected to the greatest possible extent.
Hopefully it will be a train ride, not a train wreck.
And that's why I find it particularly dangerous that the Drill Baby Drill club, which includes the editorial staff of the Rome News-Tribune, claims that there is no potential harm from hydraulic fracturing.
As the old song goes, "You don't miss your water till the well runs dry."
From the EPA's website, here are some potential risks to drinking water resources during the five stages of extraction (not the only risks of course, but ones that we in Cave Spring are particularly concerned with):
Stage 1: Water Acquisition
Large volumes of water are withdrawn from ground water and surface water resources to be used in the hydraulic fracturing process.
Potential Impacts on Drinking Water Resources:
* Change in the quantity of water available for drinking
* Change in drinking water quality
Stage 2: Chemical Mixing
Once delivered to the well site, the acquired water is combined with chemical additives and proppant (Proppant is a granular substance such as sand that is used to keep the underground cracks open once the hydraulic fracturing fluid is withdrawn) to make the hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Potential Impacts on Drinking Water Resources:
* Release to surface and ground water through on-site spills and/or leaks
Stage 3: Well Injection
Pressurized hydraulic fracturing fluid is injected into the well, creating cracks in the geological formation that allow oil or gas to escape through the well to be collected at the surface.
Potential Impacts on Drinking Water Resources:
* Release of hydraulic fracturing fluids to ground water due to inadequate well construction or operation
* Movement of hydraulic fracturing fluids from the target formation to drinking water aquifers through local man-made or natural features (e.g., abandoned wells and existing faults)
* Movement into drinking water aquifers of natural substances found underground, such as metals or radioactive materials, which are mobilized during hydraulic fracturing activities
Stage 4: Flowback and Produced Water (Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewaters)
When pressure in the well is released, hydraulic fracturing fluid, formation water, and natural gas begin to flow back up the well. This combination of fluids, containing hydraulic fracturing chemical additives and naturally occurring substances, must be stored on-site—typically in tanks or pits—before treatment, recycling, or disposal.
Potential Impacts on Drinking Water Resources:
* Release to surface or ground water through spills or leakage from on-site storage
Stage 5: Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal
Wastewater is dealt with in one of several ways, including but not limited to: disposal by underground injection, treatment followed by disposal to surface water bodies, or recycling (with or without treatment) for use in future hydraulic fracturing operations.
Potential Impacts on Drinking Water Resources:
* Contaminants reaching drinking water due to surface water discharge and inadequate treatment of wastewater
* Byproducts formed at drinking water treatment facilities by reaction of hydraulic fracturing contaminants with disinfectants
Source: http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/hfwatercycle.html
Now the people saying that the EPA considers fracturing safe are the same ones claiming that if drillers did somehow damage the environment (which contradicts their claim that fracturing is harmless), the company would remedy the situation.
If they'd lie so blatantly in the first case, why should we believe them in the second?
I am pro energy independence, But not at all costs.
You can knock a hole in the ice in a lot of places in cold weather climates and ignite the trapped gas as it escapes.
"The Truth About Gasland
Natural gas is a clean, abundant and domestic energy source that holds vast potential to promote cleaner air, grow local economies and enhance energy security in the United States and, increasingly, around the world. The natural gas community is committed to the safe and responsible development of this energy source, and we welcome questions about the film Gasland because it gives us the opportunity to set the record straight in a fact-based way.
In the film's signature moment Mike Markham, a landowner, ignites his tap water. The film leaves the viewer with the false impression that the flaming tap water is a result of natural gas drilling. However, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which tested Markham's water in 2008, there were "no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well." Instead the investigation found that the methane was "biogenic" in nature, meaning it was naturally occurring and that his water well was drilled into a natural gas pocket.
This is one of several examples where the film veers from the facts. A second depiction of a flaming faucet in the home of Renee McClure also misleads viewers about the connection between natural gas development and methane in water wells. McClure's well was sampled by the state of Colorado and it, too, showed only naturally occurring methane.
The film's claims are so egregious that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission was compelled to set the record straight. The COGCC information sheet corrects the film's misleading depictions and addresses false allegations of methane migration in Weld County.
Later in the film, natural gas is again falsely accused when the film flashes the words "35 mile fish kill Dunkard Creek Washington County PA.' The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigated this incident and tied the fish kills to coal mine run-off. Here is the official report.
In an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, John Hanger, the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said the film is "fundamentally dishonest" and "a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect."
Contrary to the film's misleading claims, natural gas production is subject to federal, state and local regulations that cover everything from initial permits to well construction to water disposal. ?In rare cases where incidents occur, companies work with the appropriate regulatory authority to promptly identify and correct the issue, and implement measures to ensure it does not recur.
The natural gas community is committed to the safe and responsible development of this abundant resource, and we firmly believe that no community should have to choose between its economic and environmental interests. The process of hydraulic fracturing has been routinely and safely used in communities throughout the nation for decades-bringing economic prosperity to local communities and significant environmental benefits. From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Ground Water Protection Council to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission the process has been examined and found to be safe. We appreciate the opportunity to share this information with interested stakeholders, and we are committed to answering the public's questions in a factual and science-based way."
www.gaslandthemovie.com
Nominated for Best Documentary OSCAR 2011
Won EMMY for Best Non Fiction Directing
Nominated for 4 Emmy Awards including Best Doc, Writer, Director and Camera
Nominated for Best Documentary Screenplay Writer’s Guild of America
Won Planet Defender Award (Josh Fox) from Rock the Earth
Won Manayunk Eco-Champion Award (Josh Fox)
Won Environmental Media Award for Best Documentary
Won John Lennon/ Yoko Ono Peace Prize 2010 (Josh Fox)
Won Citizens Campaign for the Environment Equinox Award (Josh Fox)
Won best graphic design Cinema Eye awards
Nominated for IDA Pare Lorentz Award
Won Sundance Film Festival Special Jury Prize
Won Big Sky Film Fest Artistic Vision Award
Won Yale Environmental Film Fest Grand Jury Prize
Won Sarasota International Film Fest Special Jury Prize
Won Traverse City Film Festival Best Environmental Documentary
Listed as one of Current TV 50 Docs to see before you die
Listed as Outside Magazine 25 most influential Docs of all time
Recipient of numerous congressional, state, local and county citations and proclamations
PRESS REVIEWS "...one of the most effective and expressive environmental films of recent years." - Variety
"On the want-to-see- scale, GASLAND tops the list" - Washington Post
Riveting - LA Weekly
"GASLAND just might be the best film of the year." - The Huffington Post
"Over the past 8 days I was lucky enough to view 40 films...The most important film I saw was the documentary GASLAND...This examination of air quality and more specifically drinking water under attack from NYC to Ft. Worth was very eye opening." - USA TODAY
GASLAND is "well done. It holds people's attention. And it could block our industry." - Oil and Gas Journal President of the Natural Gas Supply Association
"VOLCANIC…With humor and inquisitiveness, Fox has delivered 2010's most alarming wake-up call." - Hammer To Nail
"This is the best documentary I have ever seen, because of Josh Fox's wonderful revealing story. The narration is infused with humor, as Fox presents indisputable evidence of the fracking's disastrous effect on America. He...displays the bipartisan nature of the issue. This is unflinching, unrelenting, and unbiased storytelling. The best film I've seen at Sundance." - The Mixed Tape
"When something emerges like Josh Fox's GASLAND, a work of art which also happens to educate quite effectively...this is why festivals, even the big ones, are capable of surprises, because wonderful things do seep through the cracks. Precisely because it was purely personal...and that it was as concerned with aesthetic matters as issues, GASLAND may also be some ideal of that cherished sub-genre in many festival circles, the environmental film, which tends to leave art behind for the topic it's addressing." - Cinemascope
"...one of the most effective and expressive environmental films of recent years." - Variety
Hey, let's light up some methane gas and tell everybody it's due to "fracking". Let's put a weather station on the tarmac of an airport and say the temp is rising and call it climate change.
Scientist have admitted in intercepted emails that they are telling lies about fracking and man made global warming. Lack of credibility doesn't help if and when someone comes up with some real facts from a real study. You can keep on citing sources but that doesn't make your point any more valid.
If you do not study both sides of the issue, and err to the side of caution, your not representing truth, fact, or theory. Your only supporting blind eye ignorance.
Do I think that Fracking is absolutely wrong? NO. But do I believe there are multiple untold stories of poor farmers or landowners that live on a budget, are conservative, and have a right to safe drinking water and sustainable living: YES.
What Speaker of the House in any state would support eliminating $475,000,000 dollars in tax revenue because of an environmental report? Of course the politicians, Democrat or Republican, think the water is safe.
Lets go ahead and pump 1.5 Million gallons of chemicals into the earth below Cave Spring, Lake Weiss, the Appalachian Aquifer that sends 25 Million gallons of perfect water into Coldwater Alabama everyday, roll the dice, and hope it comes our perfect. OR, err on the side of reason and caution so that we can live the nice quality of life the indians even enjoyed before Whitey ran them off.....
Hows that?
I assume the reason for looking at the proximity of an exploratory well to local water supply is self-evident.