America’s coal energized the development of a young nation. It fueled factories, warmed homes, and powered mighty trains and ships that made our country an economic giant. Coal earned its nickname in the 19th century, “King Coal.”

Today, however, despite the presence of enormous coal reserves, World Recoverable Coal Resources America [...]]]>

America’s coal energized the development of a young nation. It fueled factories, warmed homes, and powered mighty trains and ships that made our country an economic giant. Coal earned its nickname in the 19th century, “King Coal.”

Today, however, despite the presence of enormous coal reserves, World Recoverable Coal Resources America relies on oil for the largest part of its energy demands. But our growing need for energy has outstripped our ability to rely on domestic supplies of oil, forcing us to resort to foreign imports.

Foreign Dependency:
Hazardous to Our Economic Health

Over half of the oil that fuels America’s economy is now sold to us from foreign sources . Growing Foreign Dependence But these sources may not always be reliable and what is worse many of our dollars go towards countries that promote Terrorism providing us a closed loop system ripe with war.

In 1973 and 1979, America experienced dual “oil shocks” — cutoffs of supply that provided an important warning about our vulnerability to foreign disruptions. Those crises should have served as lessons about dependence on unreliable offshore sources. Instead, our dependence on foreign sources stands at an even higher level today than it did during the embargoes that plunged America into serious recessions in the past.

Today, America is vulnerable.

An Important Step
Toward Reducing Our Vulnerability

One logical alternative is coal. American coal and waste coal reserve estimates vary wildly . World Recoverable Coal Resources In Pennsylvania, a prime coal state, is estimated to have 34 billion tons of in ground reserves.

But until recently, environmental concerns about coal posed a large obstacle to attaining greater U.S. self-sufficiency in energy. The environmental impact of mining and burning more coal was considered by many people to be too great to justify.

Today, new technology has made it possible for us to turn back to domestic energy sources — and to do it cleanly. Coal gasification/coal liquefaction will now allow us to tap the abundant energy stores within our own borders — without compromising our standards of environmental quality. In fact, these technologies may be our best hope for environmental progress in future years.

Using more of our domestic energy reserves would free us from reliance on potentially unstable sources and the economic drain that results from buying oil from overseas. It would result in greater stability in fuel pricing, jobs and job security, and enhance our national security by lessening our dependency on foreign sources.

The “US Geological Survey estimates the total identified coal resources as being 1,600 billion tons. Another 1,600 billion tons of unidentified resources are postulated.” Currently the US produces approximately 1.06 billion tons of coal annually.

If the US were to produce, from coal alone, the amount of oil equivalent to what the US imports, the US would consume an additional .912 billion tons annually.

Total coal production/consumption would then = 1.972 billion tons annually. (Not even considering the benefits of energy efficiency, biomass, renewables, high mileage vehicles etc., all of which would significantly extend our energy reserves.)

1,600 billion tons of coal / 1.972 = 811 years of fuel reserves.

Given these new conversion technologies the US is, in effect, sitting on a minimum of 811 years of worth of fuel reserves.

To the extent this message becomes clear to off shore oil suppliers, the perception of a sellers market should diminish (and the negative connotation/implications associated with that scenario) and the US would be positioned to purchase oil on its own terms.

Ultra Clean Fuels Technology:
Coal Gasification/Liquefaction

 

Coal conversion technologies – – such as Coal Gasification / Liquefaction Coal Gasification/Liquefaction — are process technologies adapted from proven production methods that have been in use for decades.

In sum, the process utilizes carbonaceous matter — coal, coal waste, biomass, refinery waste and other materials — to produce liquid fuel products that are environmentally friendly, known as Ultra Clean Fuels.

Fuels meeting these criteria are already required in some areas of the country with strict emissions standards. Ultra Clean Fuels would not only be plentiful, they could also play a large role in helping us meet the new goals for energy efficiency and cleaner air.

In addition, the production process extracts sulfur and other materials which can be used for other manufacturing and commercial purposes.

Economic Benefits of
Choosing Ultra Clean Fuels Technology

Making a commitment to Ultra Clean Fuels Technology will have substantial and long-lasting benefits, according to a study by the Center for Forensic Economic Studies. Among them:

• Adoption of Ultra Clean Fuels Technology would re-energize the domestic coal production industry (Anthracite, Bituminous, Sub Bituminous, Lignite).
• Construction and operation of Ultra Clean Fuels production facilities would create high-quality jobs, improve job security and productivity, and result in numerous spin-off benefits throughout the economy.
• Reliance on domestic coal resources would revitalize communities in coal producing regions across the country.
• Lessening dependence on foreign oil sources would improve the U.S. balance of payments dramatically and reduce the outflow of dollars to overseas suppliers.
• Diversifying our sources of energy would reduce the threat of war or economic blackmail by foreign powers that control a portion of oil reserves, with potential savings of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Environmental Benefits of Choosing
Ultra Clean Fuels Technology

• Ultra Clean Fuels are cleaner both in production and consumption than standard fossil fuels.
• Utilizing Ultra Clean Fuels would reduce the overall amount of greenhouse gases introduced into the atmosphere.
• Ultra Clean Fuels are generally more environmentally friendly than the production of electricity for electric “non-polluting” cars.
• Coal wastes that have blighted the landscapes of coal producing regions for decades would be utilized for production, resulting in wholesale reclamation of those regions.

Building for the Future:
The Private/Public Partnership

Moving Ultra Clean Fuels Technology from the drawing board into production will require an enormous effort and sizable start-up costs. For this reason, the Private / Public Partnership for Ultra Clean Fuels Technology represents the best means for making Ultra Clean Fuels Technology commercially viable in the near future.

In this partnership, private industry would be responsible for financing and construction as well as operation of the production facilities.

The public sector role would center around adoption of tax incentives that help offset the enormous capital expenditures required to make plants operational. This step will ensure a more reasonable level of risk for commercial financing purposes.This would mean simply not taxing this fuel at the pump for a period of 8 years so that private enterprise can pay off their start-up costs in a reasonable amount of time.

Conclusion

The benefits of applying Ultra Clean Fuels Technology are substantial:

 

• better utilization of domestic coal and other carbonaceous feedstock
• an alternative to continued dependence on unreliable oil imports Energy Dependency
• rebuilding our energy industry Energy Independence
• creation of new high-quality jobs
• reclamation of the nation’s coal regions
• economic benefits of lessening foreign debt burden incurred from imports

These factors are only the highlights of a program that will have an enormous positive impact on the living standards and quality of life of the American people.

Implementing Ultra Clean Fuels Technologies through a Private/Public Partnership represents a true “win-win” for the economy and the environment.

 

The time to act is now.

Until Hydraulic Fracturing is considered unsafe and not just maligned by radical environmentalist playing upon the fears of the public we fully support and condone fracking. While there are some minor risks involved, the process has a proven record of safety and the resulting Natural Gas that is produced if burned in [...]]]>

Until Hydraulic Fracturing is considered unsafe and not just maligned by radical environmentalist playing upon the fears of the public we fully support and condone fracking. While there are some minor risks involved, the process has a proven record of safety and the resulting Natural Gas that is produced if burned in automobiles will actually help keep our water supply clean by not placing toxins in the air such as gasoline does. Most of the negative media hype surrounding natural gas fracking can be linked backed to Middle Eastern interests and/or George Soros front companies. It is in these companies interests that America does not develop it’s own resources. All we can say is to not believe the hype.

Hydraulic fracturing — Hydraulic fracturing is a practice used to coax oil and natural gas from hard rock formations. It involves forcing large amounts of pressurized water, a proppant (usually sand), and very small amounts of chemicals down the wellbore to create tiny fissures in the rock so the oil and gas can flow through the wellbore to the surface. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in more than one million wells during the past 60+ years.  National Geographic produced an animation illustrating the practice and  as you’ll see, the fracturing occurs well below the aquifer and is separated from groundwater and drinking water supplies by hundreds or thousands of feet of solid rock.

A list of the chemicals used in the fracturing fluid is available at EnergyInDepth.org. (This information appears on an oil and natural gas-sponsored website but it comes from the Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council.)

Drinking water contamination — U.S. government studies have found no evidence of drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study to assess the contamination potential of underground drinking water sources (UDWS) from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluid into coalbed methane (CBM) wells. EPA found “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and does not justify additional study at this time.” EPA also reviewed incidents of drinking water well contamination believed to be associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. It found “no confirmed cases linked to fracturing fluid injection of CBM wells or subsequent underground movement of fracturing fluid.”

In 1998, the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and a team of state agency representatives conducted a survey of state oil and natural gas agencies to establish an accurate assessment of the number of active CBM wells associated with hydraulic fracturing. Based on the survey of 25 oil and natural gas producing states, the GWPC concluded, “there was no evidence to support claims that public health is at risk as a result of the hydraulic fracturing of coal beds used for the production of methane gas.”

EPA is developing a study plan now for a congressionally-mandated review of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. The study is expected to be finished in 2012.

A recent documentary about hydraulic fracturing implies that fracturing has contaminated water wells in Pennsylvania. However, John Hanger, secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently told Reuters, “It’s our experience in Pennsylvania that we have not had one case in which the fluids used to break off the gas from 5,000 to 8,000 feet underground have returned to contaminate ground water.” Hanger’s comment appears in this Reuters article.

The Safe Drinking Water Act – Despite claims to the contrary, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This act was enacted in 1974 to ensure water supply systems serving the public meet appropriate health standards. It was specifically designed to establish a federal-state partnership to “protect drinking water from contamination by the underground injection of waste,” not the use of hydraulic fracturing fluids used to enhance oil and natural gas production. Fracturing fluids were never included under the act. To clarify this point, Congress included language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 making it clear once and for all that underground injection fluids or propping agents were excluded from the SDWA.

Critics have alleged that hydraulic fracturing was “exempted” from the SDWA and have mischaracterized the language in the 2005 law as a “loophole.” These statements are not accurate.

State vs. federal regulation – Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to regulate hydraulic fracturing under federal law, rather than allow the states to continue to have regulatory authority. The GWPC examined this issue in 2009 and issued a report concluding that the regulation of oil and natural gas field activities is best accomplished at the state level where regional and local conditions are understood and where state regulators are on-hand to conduct inspections and oversee operations.

Benefits of hydraulic fracturing – It’s estimated that 80 percent or more of new oil and natural gas wells drilled in the United States will require hydraulic fracturing to enhance production. New wells provide energy for all Americans, revenues for local, state and the federal governments, lease and royalty payments for landowners, as well as create well-paying jobs, improve U.S. energy security, and encourage economic growth. About 9.2 million U.S. workers are supported by the oil and natural gas industry, and tens of thousands of additional jobs could be created if the industry were allowed to increase its U.S. operations and drill for more domestic energy for U.S. consumers.

Finally, industry best practices and existing state regulations have proven effective in protecting water resources from impacts related to drilling and production activities, including hydraulic fracturing. API continues to develop industry guidance specific to this topic, including documents on well construction, water use and management, and surface environmental considerations.

Have surface spills occurred? Yes. Mistakes have happened, and the responsible parties have been held accountable. The vast majority of oil and natural gas wells have been drilled, fractured, and managed appropriately.

Debunking Gas Land

Josh Fox makes his mainstream debut with documentary targeting natural gas – but how much of it is actually true?

For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the “Fringe Festival” of New York City, HBO’s decision to air the GasLand documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Fox’s first real foray into the mainstream – and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the network’s 30 million U.S. subscribers, a potentially significant one at that.

But with larger audiences and greater fanfare come the expectation of a few basic things: accuracy, attention to detail, and original reporting among them. Unfortunately, in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes – previously debunked – simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one.

“I’m sorry,” Josh Fox once told a New York City magazine, “but art is more important than politics. … Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions.” And so it is with GasLand: politics at its worst, art at its most contrived, and contradictions of fact found around every bend of the river. Against that backdrop, we attempt below to identify and correct some of the most egregious inaccuracies upon which the film is based (all quotes are from Josh Fox, unless otherwise noted):

Misstating the Law

(6:05) “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.”

• This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws — under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.
• The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in which they have been engaged in the practice.
• Far from being “pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney,” the Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 “yea” votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.

 

(6:24) “But when the 2005 energy bill cleared away all the restrictions, companies … began to lease Halliburton technology and to begin the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling campaign in history – now occupying 34 states.”

• Once again, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under SDWA – not in the 60-year history of the technology, the 36-year history of the law, or the 40-year history of EPA. Given that, it’s not entirely clear which “restrictions” in the law Mr. Fox believes were “cleared away” by the 2005 energy bill. All the bill sought to do was clarify the existing and established intent of Congress as it related to the scope of SDWA.
• Interest in developing clean-burning natural gas resources from America’s shale formations began to manifest itself well before 2005. The first test well in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, for example, was drilled in 2004. In Texas, the first wells in the prolific Barnett Shale formation were spudded in the late 1990s. But even before natural gas from shale was considered a viable business model, energy producers had been relying on hydraulic fracturing for decades to stimulate millions of wells across the country. The technology was first deployed in 1948.
• The contention that current energy development activity represents the “largest … drilling campaign in history” is also incorrect. According to EIA, more natural gas wells were developed in 1982 than today. And more than two times the number of petroleum wells were drilled back then as well, relative to the numbers we have today. Also, while it may (or may not) be technically true that fracturing activities take place in 34 states, it’s also true that 99.9 percent of all oil and gas activity is found in only 27 U.S. states (page 9, Ground Water Protection Council report)

 

(32:34) “The energy task force, and $100 million lobbying effort on behalf of the industry, were significant in the passage of the ‘Halliburton Loophole’ to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which authorizes oil and gas drillers exclusively to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. It passed as part of the Bush administration’s Energy Policy Act of 2005.”

• Not content with simply mischaracterizing the nature of existing law, here Fox attempts to assert that the law actually allows energy producers to inject hazardous chemicals “directly into” underground drinking water. This is a blatant falsehood. Of course, if such an outrageous thing were actually true, one assumes it wouldn’t have taken five years and a purveyor of the avant-garde to bring it to light.
• The subsurface formations that undergo fracture stimulation reside thousands and thousands of feet below formations that carry potable water. These strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock, and in some cases, more than two miles of it.
• Once again, to characterize the bipartisan 2005 energy bill as having a “loophole” for hydraulic fracturing requires one to believe that, prior to 2005, hydraulic fracturing was regulated by EPA under federal law. But that belief is mistaken. And so is the notion that the 2005 act contains a loophole for oil and natural gas. As stated, hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the states.

(1:32:34) “Diana DeGette and Maurice Hinchey’s FRAC Act [is] a piece of legislation that’s one paragraph long that simply takes out the exemption for hydraulic fracturing to the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

• Here Fox is referring to the 2008 iteration of the FRAC Act, not the slightly longer (though equally harmful) 2009 version of the bill. The legislation does not, as its authors suggest, “restore” the Safe Drinking Water Act to the way it was in 2004. It calls for a wholesale re-writing of it.
• Here’s the critical passage from the FRAC Act: “Section 1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting: (B) includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities.”
• Why would you need to “insert” new language into a 36-year-old statute if all you were looking to do is merely “restore” it?

 

Misrepresenting the Rules

(1:00:56) “Because of the exemptions, fracking chemicals are considered proprietary … The only reason we know anything about the fracking chemicals is because of the work of Theo Colborn … by chasing down trucks, combing through material safety data sheets, and collecting samples.”

• With due respect to eminent environmental activist and former World Wildlife Fund staffer Theo Colborn, no one has ever had to “chas[e] down a truck” to access information on the materials used in the fracturing process.
• That’s because there’s actually a much easier way to obtain that information: simply navigate to this website hosted by regulators in Pennsylvania, this one from regulators in New York (page 130; it will take a few moments to download), this one for West Virginia, this one maintained by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy (page 63), and this one on the website of Energy In Depth.

 

(1:03:33) Dr. Colborn: “Once the public hears the story, and they’ll say, ‘Why aren’t we out there monitoring’? We can’t monitor until we know what they’re using. There’s no way to monitor. You can’t.”

• According to environmental regulators from Josh Fox’s home state of Pennsylvania, “Drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site … These plans contain copies of material safety data sheets for all chemicals … This information is on file with DEP and is available to landowners, local governments and emergency responders.”
• Environmental regulators from Fox’s adopted state of New York also testify to having ready access to this information. From the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) information page: “The [state] is assessing the chemical makeup of these additives and will ensure that all necessary safeguards and best practices are followed.”
• According to the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), “[M]ost additives contained in fracture fluids including sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and diluted acids, present low to very low risks to human health and the environment.” GWPC members include state environmental officials who set and enforce regulations on ground water protection and underground fluid injection.

 

Mischaracterizing the Process

(6:50) “[Hydraulic fracturing] blasts a mix of water and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground. The fracking itself is like a mini-earthquake. … In order to frack, you need some fracking fluid – a mix of over 596 chemicals.”

• As it relates to the composition of fluids commonly used in the fracturing process, greater than 99.5 percent of the mixture is comprised of water and sand. The remaining materials, used to help deliver the water down the wellbore and position the sand in the tiny fractures created in the formation, are typically components found and used around the house. The most prominent of these, a substance known as guar gum, is an emulsifier more commonly found in ice cream.
• From the U.S. Dept. of Energy / GWPC report: “Although the hydraulic fracturing industry may have a number of compounds that can be used in a hydraulic fracturing fluid, any single fracturing job would only use a few of the available additives [not 596!]. For example, in [this exhibit], there are 12 additives used, covering the range of possible functions that could be built into a fracturing fluid.” (page 62)
• In the documentary, Fox graphically depicts the fracturing process as one that results in the absolute obliteration of the shale formation. In reality, the fractures created by the procedure and kept open by the introduction of proppants such as sand are typically less than a millimeter thick.

 

(50:05) “Each well completion, that is, the initial drilling phase plus the first frack job, requires 1,150 truck trips.”

• Suggesting that every well completion in America requires the exact same number of truck trips is absurd. As could be guessed, the number of trips required to supply the well site with the needed equipment and personnel will vary (widely) depending on any number of factors.
• As it relates to a source for Fox’s identification of “1,150 truck trips,” none is given – although it appears he may have derived those numbers from a back-of-the-envelope calculation inspired by a chart on page 6-142 of this document from NY DEC. As depicted on that page, the transportation of new and used water supplies, to and from the wellsite, account for 85 percent of the trips extrapolated by Fox.
• Unrepresented in this chart is the enormous growth in the amount of produced water that is currently being recycled in the Marcellus – with industry in Pennsylvania reusing and recycling on average more than 60 percent of its water, according to the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
• According to GWPC: “Drilling with compressed air is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to drilling with fluids due to the increased cost savings from both reduction in mud costs and the shortened drilling times as a result of air based drilling.” (page 55)

 

(51:12) “Before the water can be hauled away and disposed of somewhere, it has to be emptied into a pit – an earthen pit, or a clay pit, sometimes a lined pit, but a pit – where a lot of it can seep right back down into the ground.”

• The vast majority of energy-producing states – 27 in total, including all the ones to which Fox travels for GasLand – have explicit laws on the books governing the type of containment structures that must be used for temporarily storing flowback water. A number of producers today choose to store this water in steel tanks, eliminating all risk of that water re-entering the surrounding environment.
• GWPC (May 2009) “In 23 states, pits of a certain type or in a particular location must have a natural or artificial liner designed to prevent the downward movement of pit fluids into the subsurface. … Twelve states also explicitly either prohibit or restrict the use of pits that intersect the water table.” (page 28-29)
• GWPC (April 2009): “Water storage pits used to hold water for hydraulic fracturing purposes are typically lined to minimize the loss of water from infiltration. … In an urban setting, due to space limitations, steel storage tanks may be used.” (page 55)

 

Flat-Out Making Stuff Up

(53:36) “The Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah gas fields [of Wyoming] are directly in the path of the thousand year old migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse. And yeah, each of these species is endangered, and has suffered a significant decline of their populations since 2005.”

• 0 for 1: Three species of the pronghorn antelope are considered “endangered,” none of which are found anywhere near the Pinedale Anticline. Those are: the Sonoran (Arizona), the Peninsular (Mexico), and the Mexican Pronghorn (also of Mexico). According to the Great Plains Nature Center: “The great slaughter of the late 1800s affected the pronghorns … Only about 12,000 remained by 1915.  Presently, they number around one million and the greatest numbers of them are in Wyoming and Montana.”
• 0 for 2: Only one species of mule deer is considered “endangered”: the Cedros Island mule deer of Mexico (nowhere near Wyoming). The mule deer populations are so significant in Wyoming today that the state has a mule deer hunting season.
• 0 for 3: The sage grouse does not currently have a place on the endangered species list, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) – and “robust populations of the bird currently exist across the state” of Wyoming, according to the agency. Interestingly, FWS recently issued a press release identifying wind development as a critical threat the sage grouse’s habitat.
• That said, producers in the area have taken the lead on efforts to lessen their impact and reduce the number of truck trips required to service their well sites. As part of that project, operators have commissioned a series of independent studies examining additional steps that can be taken to safeguard the Anticline’s wildlife.

 

(31:32) “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”

• No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabama’s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had “no recollection” of such an investigation taking place.
• That said, it’s possible that Fox is referring to EPA’s study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.
• In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obama’s top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA’s involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: “Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.”
• For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how it’s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.

 

(1:28:06) “Just a few short months after this interview, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suffered the worst budget cuts in history, amounting to over 700 staff either being fired or having reduced hours and 25 percent of its total budget cut.”

• DEP press release, issued January 28, 2010: “Governor Edward G. Rendell announced today that the commonwealth is strengthening its enforcement capabilities. At the Governor’s direction, the Department of Environmental Protection will begin hiring 68 new personnel who will make sure that drilling companies obey state laws and act responsibly to protect water supplies. DEP also will strengthen oil and gas regulations to improve well construction standards.”

 

Recycling Discredited Points from the Past

Weston Wilson (EPA “whistleblower”): “One can characterize this entire [natural gas] industry as having a hundred year history of purchasing those they contaminate.” (33:36)

• Mr. Wilson, currently on staff at EPA’s Denver office, was not part of the team of scientists and engineers that spent nearly five years studying hydraulic fracturing for EPA. That effort, released in the form of a landmark 2004 study by the agency, found “no evidence” to suggest any relationship between hydraulic fracturing and the contamination of drinking water.
• Wilson has a well-documented history of aggressive opposition to responsible resource and mineral development. Over his 35-year career, Mr. Wilson has invoked “whistleblower” status to fight dam construction in Colorado, oil and gas development in Montana, and the mining of gold in Wyoming.
• Wilson in his own words: “The American public would be shocked if they knew we make six figures and we basically sit around and do nothing.”

 

Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington Co., Pa.; attributes that event to natural gas development. (01:23:15)

• Fox’s attempt to blame the Dunkard Creek incident on natural gas exploration is contradicted by an EPA report – issued well before GasLand was released – which blamed the fish kill on an algal bloom, which itself was fed by discharges from coal mines.
• EPA report: “Given what has been seen in other states and the etiology of this kill, we believe the toxin from this algae bloom led to the kill of fish, mussels, and salamanders on Dunkard Creek. … The situation in Dunkard Creek should be considered a chronic exposure since chloride levels were elevated above the criteria for long periods of time.” (issued 11/23/09)
• Local PA newspaper calls out Fox: “One glaring error in the film is the suggestion that gas drilling led to the September fish kill at Dunkard Creek in Greene County. That was determined to have been caused by a golden algae bloom from mine drainage from a [mine] discharge.” (Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter, 6/5/10)

 

Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development

• But that’s not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). “Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. … There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.” (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)
• Context from our friends at ProPublica: “Drinking water with methane, the largest component of natural gas, isn’t necessarily harmful. The gas itself isn’t toxic — the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t even regulate it — and it escapes from water quickly, like bubbles in a soda.” (Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, 4/22/09)

 

Lisa Bracken: Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo. on natural gas development.

• That assertion has also been debunked by COGCC, which visited the site six separate times over 13 months to confirm its findings: “Stable isotopes from 2007 consistent with 2004 samples indicting gas bubbling in surface water features is of biogenic origin.” (July 2009, COGCC presentation by Margaret Ash, environmental protection supervisor)
• Email from COGCC supervisor to Bracken: “Lisa: As you know since 2004, the COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas seepage along West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas activity.” (email from COGCC’s Debbie Baldwin to Bracken, 06/30/08)
• More from that email: “These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples.”

 

Calvin Tillman: Fox interviews mayor of DISH, Texas; blames natural gas development, transport for toxins in the air, benzene in blood.

• Tillman in the press: “Six months ago, nobody knew that facilities like this would be spewing benzene. Someone could come in here and look at us and say, ‘You know what? They’ve sacrificed you. You’ve been sacrificed for the good of the shale.’” (Scientific American, 3/30/10)
• A little more than a month later, Texas Dept. of State Health Services debunks that claim: “Biological test results from a Texas Department of State Health Services investigation in Dish, Texas, indicate that residents’ exposure to certain contaminants was not greater than that of the general U.S. population.” (DSHS report, May 12, 2010)
• More from the agency: “DSHS paid particular attention to benzene because of its association with natural gas wells. The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokers’ blood is not unusual.”

SovereigntyPlatform@gmail.com

Loading…

The Sovereignty Platform is a multi-faceted approach at the city, county, state, and federal levels to return America back to prominence. The platform addresses seven main areas.

“GOD … COUNTRY … DUTY … HONOR.  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT, THE ENVY OF THE WORLD?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CREATED A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT UNIQUE TO THE WORLD, A SYSTEM THAT PLACES THE PEOPLE ABOVE GOVERNMENT.  IN OUR SYSTEM OF CIVIL SOCIETY, THE SOVEREIGNTY BELONGS TO THE [...]]]> Playing Party Politics

“GOD … COUNTRY … DUTY … HONOR.  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT, THE ENVY OF THE WORLD?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CREATED A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT UNIQUE TO THE WORLD, A SYSTEM THAT PLACES THE PEOPLE ABOVE GOVERNMENT.  IN OUR SYSTEM OF CIVIL SOCIETY, THE SOVEREIGNTY BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE, AND GOVERNMENT IS INSTITUTED TO SERVE THEM.  OBSERVATION OF OUR CURRENT SITUATION REVEALS THAT GOVERNMENT HAS USURPED POWER OVER THE PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO THEY ARE.

IT IS TIME TO PLACE ‘PRINCIPLE’ ABOVE ‘PROFIT’ OR ‘POWER’, AND ESPECIALLY ABOVE ‘POLITICS’.  THE MATTER OF SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT PARTY SPECIFIC.  IT INVOLVES ALL AMERICANS, INDEPENDENT OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION.  THE STATES POSSESS A RESERVED SOVEREIGNTY TO GOVERN ALL DOMESTIC MATTERS PERTAINING TO ITS RESPECTIVE CITIZENRY, WHERE IT IS CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE.  THIS ATTRIBUTE IS ONE OF THE GUARANTEES DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE’S LIBERTIES AND ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY.”

The PEOPLES CONSTITUTION COALITION OF OHIO (PCCOH) has intentionally steered clear of many “issues”, not because we do not have our own ideas concerning them, but rather because we did not want to muddy the water by diverting attention away from our most important concern, that of saving America.  People falsely believe that focusing their attention on the many issues will resolve our problems with government.  Let me state, plainly, “IT WILL NOT!”  The reality of the situation is that few of the issues will ever be effectively resolved until we regain control over our government.  By that I mean to restore it to within its strictly limited powers and authorities, as provided in our Constitutions, and keeping it there.  Only then will the many issues be resolved, because government would no longer be fueling them — many will sizzle out on their own.  And, too, we must recognize that there will always be challenges for us to solve as we continue to grow as a society and resources are consumed.

The platform we are proposing on this website deviates from our primary mission.  But, we felt that there are many in the community who are interested in how restoring constitutionally-compliant government will help to resolve the issues.  These essays provide insight into some of the considerations that should be addressed in our discussions and when creating the appropriate provisions of law for resolving the issues.  Keep in mind that maybe the best solution is simply to make no law and let the people, themselves, resolve the matter by natural selection in the free market place.

As you review these essays, please consider that they are not complete solutions.  Much deliberation is warranted to ensure that we formulate solutions that protect the interests of the people, for the long term, while minimizing the negative influences of government.  We must rely on technology when it makes sense to do so.  And, we must rely on the abilities of the people to solve their own problems, utilizing the powers of government only to ensure that integrity is maintained in our interactions.  The American people are resourceful, hard-working, and motivated enough to create their own prosperity if we can get government out of our way.  So, let’s do it, with honor and integrity, and let’s make America great, again.

– Michael Alan Young – Founding Member, PCCOH

This Sovereignty Platform is not based upon party politics but one that is based upon logic, practicality, and sensible solutions to our real world problems.  This Sovereignty Platform was designed to appeal to a center right demographic base that feels that the current right wing political leaders are influenced more by their party politics than by the people they represent.

In order for a political platform to have any credibility, a candidate must take an oath to uphold the platform. No major party platform, besides ours, requires a candidate do that.

In this Sovereignty Platform we use History, Logic, and Human Nature to arrive at very unique solutions to issues that are currently facing America, solutions that the major parties haven’t even thought of, yet.  This cutting edge platform will allow you to be a new kind of candidate that does not have to sacrifice our fundamental morals or principles when bridging the gap between those on the right and those in the center.

If you agree with most reputable pollsters that America is still firmly a center right nation, then you may have already deduced that, if you can appeal to the center and to the right without sacrificing who you are, you can win any election.

This Sovereignty Platform allows you to address many tough issues by returning those decisions to the People, acting through their respective State governments.  And this allows you to maintain the integrity of our constitutional system of government and devote your positive attention to properly delegated state or federal matters rather than receiving public criticism for those matters delegated elsewhere.  Our solutions will also allow you to ask the critical questions that will divide the center left crowd on many issues.  This is done by merely pointing out the inconsistencies and constitutional incompatibilities in a more liberal platform.

This Sovereignty Platform provides the opportunity for you to talk directly to the people and not to their party, union leaders, or corporate bosses.  This is an American platform that speaks to Americans, and since it is new, we do not have any negative history to deal with like the major political party platforms do.

The Sovereignty Platform strategy rests upon these public sentiments:

1. The Government spends too much.
2. The Government taxes too much.
3. The Government is corrupted by special interests and lobbyists.
4. The Government makes too many laws and regulations.
5. The people are not happy with the high costs of goods produced in America.
6. The people believe America is in moral decay.
7. The Government interferes way too much in the daily lives of the people.
8. Restoring and maintaining constitutional compliancy and accountability by government and public officeholders.
9. Repairing what has been usurped, corrupted, or broken
10. Ensuring the future happiness and prosperity of the American people.
11. Promoting smaller and limited government.
12. Government is out of control.

The Sovereignty Platform’s Mission is:

• To maintain governmental compliance with and accountability to the State and federal Constitutions.
• To limit the governments’ powers by reducing their ability to spend, borrow, tax, mandate, and manipulate.
• Limit the power of the federal government by restoring constitutionally protected sovereign powers to the states and to the people.
• Make necessary and appropriate reforms so that the forces of socialism, communism, Islam and others may not unduly influence or corrupt our system of government or its institutions.
• Eliminate mandatory wealth re-distribution programs in favor of a much better naturally distributed monetary system and free market system.  We want to naturally return the wealth of the people to the people who earn it.

– MAY

The American people have forgotten who they are and the power they hold over their governments.  At the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the colonists became, for the first time in their lives, free.  They established governments wherein they retained their sovereign authority over government.  Government cannot be sovereign over the people, for it [...]]]> SUMMARY:

The American people have forgotten who they are and the power they hold over their governments.  At the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the colonists became, for the first time in their lives, free.  They established governments wherein they retained their sovereign authority over government.  Government cannot be sovereign over the people, for it is the servant of the people.  It is time for the people to remember who they are, to protect their sovereignty over government, and to exercise their powers to ensure that government operates within the narrow limits defined by the people.  It is time that the term “sovereignty” become a household word that the people know and understand.

*****

We, as Americans living within the federal Union called the United States of America, have been blessed with a governmental system unlike any other on Earth. Our system is based upon the premise that people hold, collectively, unto themselves the ultimate powers over government. Our government is one that is established of, for, and by the people, and founded on just principles that preserve our unalienable rights and liberties bestowed upon each of us by the Creator, God.

However, there have been those who would corrupt that which has been established and use those powers of government for their own purposes. This activity has been going on for decades, and it is time for us as Americans, to put a stop to it.

Simply stated, the free people of America are under assault by both the state and the federal governments. While the federal government continues to usurp powers outside its constitutional authority, the people’s Rights, and the principles of liberty and freedom, are quickly being eroded. For decades, both the state and the federal governments have over-stepped and expanded their delegated powers in the name of “Public Welfare”, “Public Health and Safety”, “Interstate Commerce ”, and “Executive Privilege”. With the passage of each new bill, government has taken from the people their freedoms and implemented more aggressive controls over all aspects of their lives.

Finally, the American people are waking up and taking notice. It has become clear to many of us that those operating in state and federal government have abandoned our Constitutions and instituted an aggressive Democratic form of socialism in place of our constitutional federalist Republic.

In our federalist Republic system of government, there is a distinct separation of powers between the state and the federal governments. The states have the power and authority, as asserted in the 10^th Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to resolve the current problems facing the American people as a result of the governments’ unlawful behavior.

The powers that were so delegated by the United States constitution are specifically enumerated and thereby constitute a limit of federal powers.

“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthorized, void, and of no force”
- Thomas Jefferson

The time for wasted and misguided efforts and half measures is over – we must all move with the surest of intents, and we must move swiftly if we are to save America from a collapse.

State sovereignty is recognized in the Bill of Rights and incorporated into the Constitution for the United States of America as the 10^th Article in Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
- Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution

Our various state and federal constitutions are the bedrock of our society and the only source of the powers and authorities of our Governments. Government must be held in compliance with and accountable to them. The states (and the people) have certain sovereign powers and authorities preserved to them by the U.S. Constitution which supersede those of federal Government. A State Sovereignty Amendment utilizes the sovereign power of the People, secured by the force of law, to return government to the original intent of the United States Constitution. In short, State Sovereignty can help to restore and maintain constitutional government in America.

We endorse and support the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment from the Peoples Constitution Coalition of Ohio as a model for all states to follow and strongly recommend adoption of similar amendments to their state constitutions. For more information and to read the proposed amendment language, please visit – http://www.pccoh.com/.

– MAY