Obama Birth Certificate Corsi's Forger's Joke Ukulele vs Net the Truth Online Vick Lee

The only thing at this point we feel inclined to address concerning the recent release of the "long-form" birth certificate by President Barack Obama is World Net Daily's Jerome Corsi (in "A tale of two birth certificates" suggesting the name of the local registrar on the Obama birth certificate is "ukulele."

WND's Corsi looks at the signature and reads a twisting of: ukulele

As he sees it, Corsi comments further on the registrar's name:

"...appears remarkably like a forger's signature joke on the word "ukulele"..."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292717#ixzz1L11AQk1y

We look at the signature and read Vick Lee.

Seriously, folks, all the professional document analysts, forensic document analysts, and researchers a phone call - email - or text message away and available to Corsi, and not one has pointed out the registrar's name could be as short and sweet as Vick Lee?

Unfortunately, not surprisingly, Corsi, the author of the WND article, also has a book coming out in late May, entitled: Where's The Birth Certificate...

But if Dr. Corsi misses a more than equally viable observation of the registrar's name on the Obama birth certificate, (Vick Lee vs ukulele) what else has Corsi missed?

We are simply after the truth. We're not playing politics or games.

Corsi may believe that by using the word "appears" before the claim "a forger's signature joke" gives one room to be wholly inaccurate will pass the smell test (in this case the buy and buy more test), but it shouldn't.

Fortunately, we never buy books other than used and discarded ones from second hand bookstores, or charitable organizations selling used books, where we're sure we'll find Corsi's latest sooner rather than later for about 15 cents.

Exactly what Corsi's Where's the Birth Certificate will be worth should Vick Lee turn out to be the local registrar who penned signature to Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate back when in August, 1961.

Pondering and dismissing the noted "ukulele" assertion as made by Dr. Corsi by no means negates the serious questions that that are to be pursued regarding the meaning of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' clause as it pertains to qualification requirements pertaining to a President of the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

The issue of a President-to-be's citizenship status could crop up in the near future, with a scenario arising such as a candidate seeking the office of the President of the United States having been born in the U.S. but found to be the child of an "undocumented" (illegal) immigrant and potentially one parent being a legal citizen.

With the federal Moter Voter Act Law (making it difficult to remove names from state Voter Registration Lists/local voter registries for years after an elector may have been deceased, or moved out of the voting jurisdiction), and many states issuing applicants driver's licenses based on sketcy documentation, (making it easier for illegals to gain access to the election process)(for instance, see Georgia requirments), and lax or non-existent review precesses to cull local and state voter registration lists (challenges to purges abound), it is not out of the realm of possibility down the road that such a scenario may arise.

The United States also may have precedents of sorts with presidents after the adoption of the original Constitution being born on other than United States soil.

Questions arose, not only with Barack Obama (initiated during the Democratic Primary campaign by supporters of Hillary Clinton) (use search features), but as well with Senator John McCain (use search features).

Moreover, legitimate questions arise out of our history textbooks. That is if such even contain any highlights of former 'Founding' presidents as the trend seems to be veering away from Foundational principles in our political history textbooks.

A few postings in the comments section to Newsbusters piece,
CBS and MSNBC Both Falsely Claim Obama First President to Have Citizenship Questioned" caught our attention recently as well and are deserving of scrutiny.

I seem to remember reading,
Submitted by irishguy on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:52pm.

I seem to remember reading, years ago, that there were questions of whether or not Andrew Jackson was born at sea and therefore would not have been eligible to be POTUS. If memory serves, it was a book by Allen W. Eckert, perhaps "the Frontiersman"

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/04/28/cbs-and-msnbc-both-falsely-claim-obama-first-president-have-citizenshi#ixzz1L1Ds9J00

#11 No. It was real people talking about a real issue.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:44am.

Here is the thing. Real people look at this issue and they come to a conclusion. The term "natural born citizen" was mentioned in the Constitution but was never defined in the Constitution nor by any Congress since. And the issue has never been adjudicated before the Supreme Court. So there is still some interpretation open as to exactly what is a "natural born citizen". It is not settled. It will not be settled until either the Supreme Court rules on it or there is an Amendment to define the term.

This is the way real people look at it. Real honest people. John McCain had two American parents but he was born on foreign soil. Barack Obama had only one American parent but was born on American soil. Both ran for the Presidency. The issue was brought up. But was largely ignored. Why? Because the weight of the argument is "natural born citizen" is that you were born into citizenship. And you gained that born citizenship by way of one or more of your parents citizenship. The question was asked. People looked. Said, eh, not that big a deal and we had an election.

And yes. Real people. Honest people had a duty, a right, to look and deem it not a big deal. They look, and say, OK, not completely settled but it is not worth the big national debate to settle this once and for all during a campaign fight. No. It was not racist. But it was worth looking at both of these candidates. The question was brought up and the question was found wanting.

That leads to why, why these birther trolls come here, going on 28 months after the fact, and look honest people, real people in the face and act as though the matter of the definition of "natural born citizen" is settled law. Look at these people. Every single one. Every single act as though their definition of the term IS A FACT. And they will argue and argue and argue as though they have the 11th commandment in stone and the 11th commandment is their definition of "natural born citizen". It is enough to make a grown man cry. The stupidity. The crassness. The rudeness of acting as though this is settle law when in fact it is not.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/04/28/cbs-and-msnbc-both-falsely-claim-obama-first-president-have-citizenshi#ixzz1L1IN1Lx1

What we need is the truth. In order to be taken absolutely seriously on legitimately questioning the meaning of "natural born citizen" internet musings must sort fact from fiction as quickly as possible.

In fact, we're pondering as well the Framers' placement of a comma after "No person except a natural born Citizen," and before, "or a Citizen of the United States" and rather than using the word "and" use of the word "or" with the word Citizen.

Pondering that will be left to another day.

No matter whom the truth hurts, it must be told, and accuracy must reign.

The saying "one rotten apple spoils the bunch" is as true anywhere and no less than in the case of journalism, and citizen-journalism as well, and we contributing to, using, and consuming from the Internet must ensure the truth doesn't become spoiled by the rot.

No matter where the rot appears to be found.

Net the Truth Online

A tale of two birth certificates
'Rosetta Stone' documents provide comparison

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily


That Obama's birth certificate lists a registrar that appears remarkably like a forger's signature joke on the word "ukulele" is not the only peculiarity observed in comparing the president's record with other long-form Hawaiian birth certificates that have been fully authenticated.

The question is whether the Obama birth record the White House released Wednesday is an authentic photocopy of an original 1961 vital record or a modern-day forgery.
Read more: A tale of two birth certificates http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292717#ixzz1L0xZaPtf

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292717

PA Marcellus Shale (Gov. Corbett) Gas Fee vs Severance Tax

We lean with Governor Tom Corbett in considering a fee on the Oil and Gas industry/drillers vs a new gas severance tax. We don't think the latter would pass Constitutional review, and years and years would go by before anything is determined from litigation.

Gas fee proposed by state to benefit locals

By Brad Bumsted and Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, April 29, 2011

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_734427.html#ixzz1Kun9kmCs

In the meantime, drillers are willing - it appears - to the imposition of a fee to be imposed and its proceeds to be kept at the local level.

That makes far more sense than having any revenues from the tax go first to the state (in part to cover the state budget deficits created by past Administration) then some to the localities where the drilling occurs.

We urge as well that the Governor review the potential any of the gas itself go to China, rather than wholly being distributed across Pennsylvania, and held in reserve for future generations of Pennsylvanians.

No gas to China and energy independence should be the slogans for a renewed Pennsylvania.

Net the Truth Online

Gas fee proposed by state to benefit locals
By Brad Bumsted and Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, April 29, 2011 Last updated: 7:14 am

HARRISBURG -- A much-anticipated proposal by the Senate's top Republican to levy a fee on Marcellus shale gas drilling touched off debate on Thursday among supporters and opponents over the industry assessment and who would get the money.

Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, said his bill -- to be introduced in a week or so -- gives 60 percent of the collected fees to counties and municipalities with deep wells, as well as townships and boroughs that neighbor drilling production sites. The bill splits the other 40 percent between conservation districts statewide and environmental funds for cleanup and infrastructure, although he said that's up for negotiation.

The fee would be retroactive for 2010 and would raise $45 million for last year. It would bring in $76 million this year and would rise to at least $150 million by 2014, Scarnati said.

"I have to believe this is in the sweet spot of where I believe most legislators will be," Scarnati said.

The senator said it was an attempt to meet the parameters of fellow Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, who opposes a severance tax but has said he would consider such an impact fee if the revenue remains in local hands and does not go into the state general fund.

"It's the beginning of a discussion," said Kevin Harley, Corbett's press secretary.

Governments would use the fee to help cover damage to roads and bridges, for maintenance and improvement costs for water and sewage systems, and for emergency responder costs, Scarnati said.

Scarnati said it is a fee and not a tax because the money does not go to the state general fund.

"What's the difference between a fee and tax? Gov. Corbett's pen," Scarnati said. "That will be the ultimate test."

The Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, which has opposed a severance tax in the past, issued a statement saying its members are open to discussing an impact fee that raises money to offset problems caused by the industry.

Drillers are open to an impact fee that provides money for local communities as long as it's "clear, straightforward and competitive," Kathryn Klaber, president of the Cecil-based Marcellus Shale Coalition trade group, said in a statement.

"Our industry understands that while there are tremendous financial opportunities in Marcellus shale development, there also can be impacts felt by our host communities," Klaber said.



Read more: Gas fee proposed by state to benefit locals - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_734427.html#ixzz1KulMY5zc

Report Flawed Representation without taxation: how natural gas producers escape taxes in PA

We came across the report Representation without Taxation: How Natural Gas Producers Escape Taxes in Pennsylvania the other day as no doubt it had been used by PA state representatives touting a new tax on Marcellus Shale drillers. We saw no indication on the site of any admission of errors!

Now, we learn in Group admits errors in energy tax report the report is flawed, with errors.

Of course, the error and biased (and potentially unsubstantiated) title of the report Representation without Taxation: How Natural Gas Producers Escape Taxes in Pennsylvania won't matter to the representatives claiming some tax or other is needed on Marcellus Shale drillers...

It is worth noting, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, according to the Tribune-Review article, said of the report:


PBPC used "blatantly wrong and faulty information" to drive its political agenda

Meanwhile, according to the Tribune-Review article, PBPC denies the charge.

We also wonder whether all the talk about imposing an extraction tax is just that, talk, since there will be years and years of litigation should legislation be passed, litigation that goes to the heart of the Constitutionality of the tax and how it could pass Constitutional review.

Net the Truth Online

The following is an informative article, Real Property Taxation of the Marcellus Shale and Other Mineral Interests in Pennsylvania Oil & Gas/Real Estate Alert by Raymond P. Pepe . April 17, 2009

Real Property Taxation of the Marcellus Shale and Other Mineral Interests in Pennsylvania Oil & Gas/Real Estate Alert by Raymond P. Pepe . April 17, 2009
This Alert reviews Pennsylvania’s current assessment laws pertaining to mineral interests and improvements made to land to extract and process minerals; summarizes pending legislative proposals to modify the state’s assessment laws to tax real property interests in gas reserves; and discusses critical issues that should be considered by businesses engaged in the extraction of natural gas and other mineral resources in Pennsylvania, property owners and local governments relating to the assessment of natural gas reserves and other mineral rights.

The Alert also considers whether it is permissible for real property tax purposes to assess mineral interests severed from fee-simple title to property, but to exempt from taxation equivalent mineral interests retained by the surface owners of properties in order to minimize the extent to which taxes will be imposed upon Pennsylvania residents...

CLIPPED EXCERPT

Proposed Legislation
House Bill 10 of 2009, sponsored by Representative Bill DeWeese and 27 other members of the General Assembly, provides that rights held pursuant to a lease or other agreement to extract, remove or recover gas, oil or coal bed methane shall be subject to taxation as real estate and assessed and taxed separately from the surface property in the name of the holder of such rights. The legislation further provides that these mineral interests will be assessed utilizing the discounted income approach to value as supplemented by the sales comparison data.

To facilitate the assessment of mineral interests, House Bill 10 requires a lessee or operator to provide annually to the county assessor “such nonproprietary lease and lease income information as the assessor determines is reasonably needed to determine value.” Using this information, the legislation would allow counties to change the assessed value of gas, oil, and coal bed methane mineral rights whenever “information becomes available that would significantly affect the valuation” of the property, including the “commencement of production on or near the property,” or the “depletion of the hydrocarbon gas subject to the lease and related production.”

CLIPPED EXCERPT

D. Avoiding Constitutional Litigation
The Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires all taxes to be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. The Pennsylvania Constitution further specifies circumstances in which exemptions or special provisions for taxation of property are permissible, and provides that all laws exempting property from taxation other than those specifically enumerated by the Constitution “shall be void.” Various provisions of the U.S. Constitution further impose limitations upon state taxes, including the due process and equal protection requirements of the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

House Bill 10 would allow counties to change the value of oil, gas, and coal bed methane mineral interests whenever events significantly affect the valuation of the property. This procedure contrasts with existing Pennsylvania law that authorizes the reassessment of properties only pursuant to countywide reassessments or in the event of subdivisions, the construction of new improvements, or as necessary to correct errors and omissions in a county’s assessment records. As a result, significant questions will arise regarding whether, in the context of tax assessments statutorily required to be determined based upon a common base year, establishing different reassessment schedules for certain types of property violates uniformity and equal protection requirements.

Similarly, House Bill 10 deviates substantially from existing law by taxing mineral interests severed from fee-simple title by a lease or other agreement, but exempting the same mineral interests if retained by the landowner. It is difficult to identify a rational basis for exempting from taxation mineral interests held by fee-simple landowners, but imposing taxes on identical mineral interests severed from the remaining interests in the property, other than a patently discriminatory intent to impose taxes primarily upon businesses engaged in interstate commerce that focus their efforts upon mineral development and to confer benefits upon the owner occupants of properties located within Pennsylvania...

http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/detail.aspx?publication=5553

Representation without Taxation: How Natural Gas Producers Escape Taxes in Pennsylvania

State Budget and Tax Policy
April 25, 2011

Download Full Report

Natural gas drillers in Pennsylvania pay very little in state and local taxes, despite industry claims to the contrary. In tax year 2008, the oil and gas industry[1] paid $38.8 million in Pennsylvania state business taxes.[2]
Of the 783 companies to file corporate net income tax returns, only 15% owed any tax. A significantly larger number of drillers — including nine of the top 10 permit holders in the Marcellus Shale — structure their businesses as limited liability companies (LLCs) or limited partnerships (LPs). This allows them to avoid the corporate net income tax altogether and pay the much lower personal income tax on company profits.

In 2008, 120 companies paid $17.8 million in corporate net income taxes. 51% of companies had capital stock and franchise tax liability, paying $8 million. While a greater proportion (56%) of LLCs and partnerships had tax liability, they paid in total $13 million in personal income taxes.

http://www.pennbpc.org/gas-drillers-escape-taxes

By Jeremy Boren
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, April 29, 2011


A Harrisburg group said on Thursday there are flaws in its report on corporate income taxes paid by energy companies drilling for natural gas in Pennsylvania's mile-deep Marcellus shale formation.

The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center's report, "Representation without Taxation: How Natural Gas Producers Escape Taxes in Pennsylvania," overestimated how frequently firms use their status as limited-liability companies to pay the state's 3.07 percent personal income tax, instead of the much higher 9.99 percent net corporation income tax, a center spokesman said.
"As soon as we realized there was a problem, we corrected it, and we posted it to our website," said spokesman Chris Lilienthal.

The correction notes that individuals and corporations receive profits through an energy company limited liability corporation or limited partnership, meaning a mix of personal and corporate taxes are paid. The original version said energy companies could avoid paying corporate income tax "altogether" as an LLC or LP.

Errors in the report, which relies on 2008 tax data collected by the state Department of Revenue, go deeper than that, said Elizabeth Brassell, a spokeswoman for the Department of Revenue.

The center's researchers relied on flawed mathematical calculations, Brassell said.

She said because of high interest, the department plans to release a report soon about tax revenues generated by Marcellus shale drilling operations. That report, however, likely won't pinpoint how much energy companies pay in corporate and personal income taxes.

Travis Windle, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, said PBPC used "blatantly wrong and faulty information" to drive its political agenda, a charge PBPC denies.

The board of directors that runs the center is made up of labor union and public university officials. It is advocating for state lawmakers to impose a severance tax on natural gas drillers, which has been controversial.

Read more: Group admits errors in energy tax report - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_734569.html#ixzz1KuaWkk75

PA State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe Addresses Proof Citizenship Residency Requirements for Candidates

It's worth noting state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe's necessary legislation as noted in "Document release adds paper to 'birther' fire" Mike Wereschagin Thursday, April 28, 2011

Our state legislators have an obligation to measure up to their own Constitutional duties. What could be a more proper duty than vetting Pennsylvania election contenders before the formal election process begins.

We've all seen incidents in the state and our own localities wherein candidates have been challenged by opponents to determine whether residency requirements have been met. Usually such challenges are mounted by opponents, with a few challenges arising from district or precinct voters.

Most times, such efforts are successful. A judicial determination is made the challenged candidate does not meet residency requirements. These requirements are enveloped into the PA Election Laws, often, however, there are areas of grey in the law, and one is usually pretty certain before bringing a challenge that the challenge is legitimate.

Not all challenges regarding residency requirements are successful, and many simply are not brought due to the blowback inherent in such a challenge to an opponent.

Rarely do citizens bring a challenge forth because of the huge cost of such, and such must pretty much have strong grassroots support or the publicity of the effort will be a detriment.

Metcalfe's bill will go a long way to enabling voters to have an assurance that candidates who present themselves for election have met all of the state's requirements including citizenship, age, residency, and the broader other constitutional requirements.

We'd be remiss if we also didn't mention the legislator should also look into crafting a bill that forces local county board of elections to ensure the voter registration list for the county is as accurate as is possible. Every voting district and precinct should have completed a full review of the voter registry list at some point within so many years, say 5, and from then on be required to annually review the voter registry and remove any names (throught the proper process) that are not qualified to be on the voter registry.

Karl Rove has his nerve. Previously and recently, Rove was convinced it was only the "fringe" of conservatives who questioned President Barack Obama's birth location. He more than just chastised Donald Trump for seeking President Obama finally just release a copy of the sought-after long-form. Trump noted Hillary Clinton's campaign had raised questions about Obama's standing to be elected for just that reason though that was hush-hush among the mainstream media.

Rove was nearly livid that Trump would make such a huge issue of Obama's birth certificate, charging the request drew conservatives deeper into the insanity.

Now, after Obama released his long-form birth certificate, Rove still dismisses the effort as silly.

So all that Rove admits is more fringe-type people/conservatives were participating in an effort Rove tags as 'fringe.'

Rove's simply trying to make Trump look like the kind of candidate who only draws the 'fringe' to his causes and positions because they've been drawn to Trump on the "birther" issue.

We've said before we don't mind being lumped in with 'fringe' especially when the goal is to seek the truth and nothing but the truth, no matter what the revelations, no matter whom the truth hurts in its enlightenment and information.

If we're among the fringe because we want Pennsylvania to initiate a bill that imposes vetting of candidates at any level before the election process begins, so be it.

Net the Truth Online

As many as two-thirds of Republicans question Obama's birth in the United States, according to recent polls, including a New York Times/CBS poll released last week that found 45 percent of Republicans -- and 25 percent of all Americans -- believe Obama was not born in this country. That showed the claims were gaining traction beyond the fringe, said Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief strategist.

"He was happy to use it for his benefit, until it no longer benefited him," Rove said.

Releasing Obama's birth certificate "really doesn't affect the legislation I've introduced" to require similar documentation for all candidates in Pennsylvania, said state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry. He said the bill never targeted Obama.

"It was really kind of alarming that the state was not being responsible in (vetting candidates), from local to state to federal, to ensure that all of us meet the citizenship, age, residency and other constitutional requirements," Metcalfe said

Read more: Document release adds paper to 'birther' fire - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_734212.html#ixzz1Kp8MX8qR

Shale Drilling Faces EPA Crackdown

Wall Street journal
Shale Drilling Faces Crackdown
BY RYAN TRACY
The Environmental Protection Agency will more closely regulate the use of diesel fuel in a drilling process used to recover natural gas, Administrator Lisa Jackson said Tuesday.

The EPA until recently hasn't moved to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a process that involves injecting various types of drilling fluids into wells to free oil and natural gas trapped in shale formations deep underground.

Instead, the EPA relied on state regulators, in part because Congress in 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the federal ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778104576287430280004342.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Local Planning Offices Implementing United Nations Agenda 21

Very little doubt about it, local planning offices are implementing the United Nations Agenda 21

Case in point. Standard Building Codes, that's right. State-wide mandated local building codes. Municipalities or counties handling such planning were required to adopt the regulations. Those municipalites that didn't adopt the planning codes forfeited these duties to the county which had a planning office. In turn, the county board of commissioners adopted the state regulations for planning.

Of course, officials would deny there's anything in the planning code that comports with the United Nations Agenda 21. Even if they admitted such, they'd ask you to prove there is something 'nefarious' about the United Nations Agenda 21.

The primary comeback to that is what business is it of an unelected body - the United Nations - to offer regulations - which our federal representatives have signed on to by participating in the United Nations - and in turn states later adopt and then localities adopt the measures in such as local planning codes.

Most citizens have a hard enough time keeping track of how our elected officials ignore their oaths of office on any number of issues.

Continuously, one measure or another is simply unconstitutional, such as free trade agreements on the federal level (these should be treated as treaties as the effect on U.S. law is as if the agreements are treaties) and in Pennsylvania, Keystone Opportunity Zones.

We have long questioned how it is uniform taxation for local officials to waive taxes to businesses or residents locating in a KOZ for some specified amount of years, usually 10 or 12, and some with extensions after extensions? Meanwhile, other property owners locally who don't have property in a KOZ suffer fear of fines, fees, or loss of property for failure to pay their annual tax bills to the local jurisdictions or the state.

There is much wrong with the Agenda 21 coming to your local community. Be aware and hold your local officials accountable.

Net the Truth Online

U.N.'s Agenda 21 is in your community
Henry Lamb
World Net Daily Posted: April 23, 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Anyone who reads Chapter 7 of Agenda 21 and then reads his local comprehensive land-use plan will immediately recognize that most of the provisions of the local land-use plan come directly from Agenda 21. More often than not, the elected officials who adopt these plans have never read Agenda 21, and many have never even heard of the U.N. document, signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

The facilitators and professional planners have heard about Agenda 21, but frequently claim that the plan they are working on has nothing to do with the U.N. or Agenda 21. Don't believe it for one minute.

Gary Lawrence, former director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and chief planner for the city of Seattle, told an audience in London:

In the case of the U.S., our local authorities are engaged in planning processes consistent with LA21 [Local Agenda 21], but there is little interest in using the LA21 brand. … So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.
In community after community, the same scenario is repeated. The federal government, through the EPA or the Department of Commerce or the Department of Interior, offers special grants to communities for the purpose of developing a vision for a greener future and a plan to convert the vision into reality.

Typically, the local government will find a private consultant to "facilitate" the process. The facilitator will identify a local "steering committee," carefully chosen from people who represent various segments of the community, all of whom are known in advance to be sympathetic to the goals of Agenda 21.

Typically, the advisory group will meet in private to lay out the framework for the process and the goals for the finished product. When this is achieved, public meetings are scheduled to give the appearance of public input and ownership. Rarely are these meetings ever publicized adequately to attract the private-property owners who are most directly affected. Care is taken to see that members of local environmental organizations and social-justice organizations constitute the majority of attendees.

These public meetings are said to be "the visioning process." The procedures vary slightly from community to community, depending upon the facilitator. Remarkably, however, the "vision" in every community contains essentially the same elements: restricted auto traffic; bike trails; walkable neighborhoods; integrated housing; high-density urban boundary zones; conservation areas; green belts; and much more – directly from Agenda 21.

Once the vision document is complete, the next step is to convert it into a comprehensive land-use plan, adopted by local elected officials in the form of an ordinance that is enforceable with fines and other penalties. The plans are necessarily so long and complex that few people ever read them, other than the professional planners and enforcement officials. Many, if not most, of these comprehensive plans incorporate many, if not most, of the codes developed by the International Codes Council. Here are some of the codes:

International Building Code
International Residential Code
International Fire Code
International Energy Conservation Code
International Private Sewage Disposal Code
International Mechanical Code
International Fuel Gas Code
International Wildland-Urban Interface Code
ICC Performance Code
International Existing Building Code
International Property Maintenance Code
International Zoning Code
International Green Construction Code
Here's a sample of what to expect. From Chapter 2 of the International Green Construction Code:

CONSERVATION AREA. Land designated by the jurisdiction or by state or federal government, as a result of a community planning process, as appropriate for conservation from development because of the land possessing natural values important to the community including, but not limited to wildlife habitat, forest or other significant vegetation, steep slopes, ground water recharge area, riparian corridor or wetland.
DAYLIGHT SATURATION. The percentage of daytime hours throughout the year when not less than 28 foot-candles (300 lux) of natural light is provided at a height of 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor.

DEMAND RESPONSE, AUTOMATED (AUTO-DR). Fully Automated Demand Response initiated by a signal from a utility or other appropriate entity, providing fully-automated connectivity to customer energy end-use control strategies.

This is a tiny sample of the rules and regulations buried deep within the innocent-sounding comprehensive land-use plans adopted by unaware local officials to achieve the politically correct label of "sustainable community."



Read more: U.N.'s Agenda 21 is in your community http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=290225#ixzz1KLyiFFnH

Where Will PA Gamelands Gas Go? China?

the most sickening aspect of leasing state gamelands in PA for Marcellus Shale drilling is it is very likely the gas obtained will go directly to China.

Something needs to be done about that.

Meanwhile, what benefit to residents of the state have on cost of energy, and how updated are government properties to provide buildings with natural gas.

We'd go further and recommend all PA municipalites convert to natural gas and be funded with any shale fees and/or taxes.

Net the Truth Online

Agency OKs more gas drilling on state game lands
Friday, April 22, 2011
By Marc Levy, The Associated Press
HARRISBURG -- The Pennsylvania Game Commission has expanded the scope of leasing state-owned hunting lands for harvesting natural gas from the lucrative Marcellus Shale formation, this time netting more than $18 million.

The money helps a financially strapped agency that has cut back programs, such as raising pheasants for small-game hunting, while going a dozen years without an increase in the hunting license fees that are its primary source of support.

About two-thirds of the lease money is payment for the extraction of natural gas from beneath game lands in Bradford and Lycoming counties in Northern Pennsylvania by way of wells that would be drilled on adjacent, privately owned land. Another lease on game lands in adjoining Tioga County will allow up to three well pads -- each of which can host multiple wells -- and pipeline construction.

Marcellus Shale drilling involves blasting chemical-laced water into the ground, a procedure called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Critics say fracking could poison water supplies, but the gas drilling industry says it has been used safely for decades.

Ted Onufrak, president of the 90,000-member Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, said most of his members are comfortable with the expansion of Marcellus Shale drilling as long as the Legislature and the governor's office give the game commission the resources to stay on top of the activity.

"If you've got one [commission] land manager in charge of two counties, and first there's 20 wells and then there's 60 wells, that's a lot to ride herd on," Mr. Onufrak said. "They are going to need some additional staff."

The new leases bring the agency's haul from the Marcellus Shale to at least $19 million, game commission officials said. Royalties are also beginning to trickle in from the first Marcellus Shale wells that are producing gas, commission officials said.

The money stays with the game commission, which can use it to buy land or pay for its day-to-day operations. A large chunk of the more than $300 million raised by leasing Pennsylvania's state forest land for Marcellus Shale drilling has been tapped by the Legislature to help wipe out state government deficits.

The commission does not view gas drilling income as a replacement for increasing the $20.70 adult resident hunting license fee, which the agency has sought from the Legislature since 2004, spokesman Jerry Feaser said Wednesday.

Mr. Feaser also said the commission is not under additional pressure to lease game land because of the Legislature's refusal to raise fees. He pointed out that when the energy industry's pursuit of the Marcellus Shale began in earnest in 2008, companies asked the commission to lease its entire land holdings in the northeastern corner of the state, which it has not done.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11112/1141071-113-0.stm?cmpid=healthscience.xml#ixzz1KGIZJZHw

Big Flop Bill O'Reilly Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

The Factor's Bill O'Reilly as loud as is his norm as he faced Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano failed to deliver even one question that would bust Napolitano's all-is-better than-ever at the border lies.

O'Reilly Factor Wed. April 20, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRoYQ2G678Q

Better than when and what??? That question would have been a natural, but O'Reilly didn't ask it.

Napolitano's statement "border security is better than ever" is nothing new.

Janet Napolitano: Border security better than ever

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 3/25/11 6:41 AM EDT Updated: 3/25/11 4:16 PM EDT
While the U.S.-Mexico border region has developed a reputation for danger, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stressed Thursday that protection of the border “is better now than it ever has been” and violence has not spilled into the United States.

Speaking in El Paso at the Bridge of the Americas, which connects Texas to Ciudad Juarez, Napolitano said that border is safe and that her department is working to further secure it. The department is planning to deploy 250 new border agents, and the agency’s proposed 2012 budget includes a request for funding an additional 300, The Associated Press reported.


“There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been,” Napolitano said. “That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been.”

It’s also “wrong,” Napolitano said, that the drug-related violence in northern Mexico is spilling over into U.S. border cities. Violent crime rates in cities in the Southwest have stayed flat or fallen, she said. At the same time, she acknowledged, “there is much to do with colleagues in Mexico in respect to the drug cartels.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51925.html#ixzz1K9rTQO1s

O'Reilly has had quite a while to delve into its truthfulness and gather property owners, alive, but living in fear and armed for self-protection, to face-off on camera with Napolitano.

Napolitano might have claimed "unfair" but hey citizens of the United States are dying at or near their own property at the hands of criminals in drug cartels and human trafficking networks with no curtailment in sight.

While O'Reilly highlighted one such rancher armed for self-protection, the spot was taped, with no ability for the rancher, and others, to smack Napolitano with the clear truth.

O'REILLY: -- are you winning down there? Are you guys -- are you going to tell that rancher, look, we're winning this war against the Mexican intrusion of narcotics and human trafficking? We're winning it so you just hold on a little bit down there? Keep your shotgun handy but things are going to get better? Is that what you are going to tell him?

NAPOLITANO: Well, what I would say is not only are we putting more into that border but that more is on its way and we are very committed to a safe and secure border for a lot of reasons.

O'REILLY: All right. Now, ...

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007214&docId=l:1403050571&isRss=true

O'Reilly followed that with a question about violence moving further south into the United States.

Napolitano went on at length, basically saying nothing.

O'REILLY: All right. Now, the cartels obviously have got to be a concern to you because of all the tremendous violence that they -- that they cause and now we're getting reports that some cartels are moving into the south and southwest United States to set up shop. Are you hearing that?

NAPOLITANO: Well, let me -- you know, the cartels have always had distribution networks in the United States. I mean, that's where they make their money. They distribute drugs, you know, through virtually every state in the -- in the country.

What we are focused on in with Mexico right now is seeing if we can root out the cartels themselves and -- and really dismantle them. And that is what is causing a lot of the violence that's going on in Mexico right now.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007214&docId=l:1403050571&isRss=true

Which of the two are brain dead?

Both.

Addressing Napolitano's 'border security is better than ever before' theme, O'Reilly's parting comment to Napolitano was this:

"I'm hoping that you are right."

O'REILLY: All right. Good. You're painting a very optimistic picture, madam secretary. And I'm just hoping that you're right --

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007214&docId=l:1403050571&isRss=true

O'Reilly is hoping Napolitano is right?

Wouldn't she continue to claim she is right?

And doesn't O'Reilly presume in the remark that Napolitano has not convinced him she is right and the 'border security is better than ever before?'

The man could see for himself in his own investigative team's video, which preceded Napolitano's appearance, Janet Napolitano was not right.

She lied, and O'Reilly let her off the hook with his offering of hope on a platter.

SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:12 PM EST

April 20, 2011 Wednesday

O'REILLY: So you say you're winning --

NAPOLITANO: So our goal is to have a safe and secure --

O'REILLY: -- are you winning down there? Are you guys -- are you going to tell that rancher, look, we're winning this war against the Mexican intrusion of narcotics and human trafficking? We're winning it so you just hold on a little bit down there? Keep your shotgun handy but things are going to get better? Is that what you are going to tell him?

NAPOLITANO: Well, what I would say is not only are we putting more into that border but that more is on its way and we are very committed to a safe and secure border for a lot of reasons.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: All right. Now, the cartels obviously have got to be a concern to you because of all the tremendous violence that they -- that they cause and now we're getting reports that some cartels are moving into the south and southwest United States to set up shop. Are you hearing that?

NAPOLITANO: Well, let me -- you know, the cartels have always had distribution networks in the United States. I mean, that's where they make their money. They distribute drugs, you know, through virtually every state in the -- in the country.

What we are focused on in with Mexico right now is seeing if we can root out the cartels themselves and -- and really dismantle them. And that is what is causing a lot of the violence that's going on in Mexico right now.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: Do you -- do you -- would you advice President Calderon down there to allow U.S. agents, drug agents and the Homeland Security agents, ICE agents to go into Mexico armed and help his guys? Because that's always the problem, he doesn't allow American agents armed down there.

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think we're getting into areas where we work on a case by case basis with President Calderon. And we are actually doing a lot together with the federal government of Mexico with ICE agents, with DEA agents and at times and in coordination with and at the request of Mexico even with some military assets.

O'REILLY: All right. Good. You're painting a very optimistic picture, madam secretary. And I'm just hoping that you're right --

(CROSSTALK)

NAPOLITANO: Right.

O'REILLY: -- on both the border intrusion and the more cartels.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007214&docId=l:1403050571&isRss=true

PA Allowed Wastewater from Drilling into Unequipped City Treatment Plants

what do we get from the recent action by PA DEP to request drillers stop using municipal water treatment facilities to take in wastewater from Marcellus Drillers?

Heads should roll from previous administrations which enabled the treatment facilities to accept the wastewater when it was known such facilities were not able to properly deal with the wastewater.

Heads should roll from any previous legislators who supported this travesty.

Net the Truth Online

Drilling water ban a boon?
Official: EPA ruling could mean more volume at plant
April 20, 2011
It's too early to tell if Warren might benefit from a decision Tuesday by Pennsylvania to ban cities from accepting natural gas drilling wastewater, a Warren official said.

Tom Angelo, director of the Warren Water Pollution Control department, said revenues could rise if wastewater shipped from Pennsylvania wells consistently reaches a higher concentration level of salt.

The city's treatment system, which is legally capped at 100,000 gallons a day, has been handling 30,000 gallons to 80,000 gallons a day of brine water sent from Patriot Water Treatment in Warren, Angelo said.

That volume may change "very quickly," he said, following the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's order that companies drilling in the Marcellus Shale rock formation stop taking wastewater to 15 treatment plants by May 19.

"They'll be scrambling quickly. We'll probably see 700,000 gallons a week," he said.

The department is paid both by volume of water and the water's salt level. The Warren treatment plant will see more revenue if the salt content consistently reaches the allowed ceiling of 50,000 milligrams per liter of water, he said.

He pointed out Warren is better prepared than Pennsylvania cities to accept the polluted water, which drillers pump into 5,000-foot deep wells to shatter the shale rock and release natural gas.

"The biggest problem Pennsylvania had was they were allowing gas and oil companies to go directly to a (city) wastewater treatment plant and discharge with no limit on volume of water or level of salt," he said.

CLIP CONTINUES

Other major gas-drilling states require wastewater to be injected it deep underground into disposal wells. But in Pennsylvania, some wastewater is treated by sewer authorities, largely in western Pennsylvania, and discharged into rivers from which communities draw drinking water.

Environment regulators cited elevated levels of bromide in rivers in western Pennsylvania in its announcement.

Officials at Pittsburgh-area drinking water authorities in Beaver Falls and Fredericktown say their facilities have flunked tests for trihalomethanes in the past couple years.

Complicating the matter is that, in addition to gas drilling, Pennsylvania's multitude of acid-leaching, abandoned coal mines and other industrial sources are also a major factor in the high salt levels that lead to trihalomethanes in drinking water.

Pennsylvania imposed tougher wastewater treatment standards for drilling wastewater in August, although it still allowed facilities that had been permitted to accept drilling wastewater before August to continue accepting limited amounts under the same treatment standards. Fifteen of those 27 facilities that were grandfathered under the August rules were still accepting the wastewater, the DEP said.



http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/555860/Drilling-water-ban-a-boon-.html?nav=5021

Matt Pitzarella: Supports DEP action says we can treat the water without sending it to grandfathered treatment plants

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
10:58 p.m. EDT, April 19, 2011
mc-pa-shale-water-pollution-20110419

HARRISBURG—
_ Citing a concern about the safety of drinking water, state environmental officials have called on natural gas drillers working in the burgeoning Marcellus shale formation to stop taking wastewater to 15 treatment plants by May 19.

The action Tuesday by acting Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer came the same day that the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group, acknowledged for the first time that wastewater discharges into rivers and streams were partly responsible for higher levels of pollutants that had been found in western Pennsylvania waterways.

Drillers have been criticized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and by environmentalists for the practice, which the DEP had allowed at some facilities despite tighter water discharge standards that were passed in December.

In a statement, the DEP said the state had found elevated levels of bromide in surface water samples from rivers in western Pennsylvania, where the majority of gas drilling is taking place.

Bromide is a non-toxic salt compound that, when it reacts with disinfectants used by municipal treatment plants, turns into a substance known as "Total Trihalomethanes," or "THMs." Studies have shown a link between the ingestion of, and exposure to, THMs, and certain birth defects and cancer types.

"Now is the time to take action to end this practice," Krancer said in a statement.

In other gas-producing states, such as Texas, wastewater is pumped deep underground into so-called "injection wells," keeping it out of streams and rivers. But in Pennsylvania, some drilling wastewater is treated by sewer authorities and then discharged into rivers.

Erika Staaf, of the advocacy group PennEnvironment, said Tuesday that while the plants can dilute the wastewater, they are not equipped to fully treat it, resulting in partially treated wastewater being discharged into waterways from which communities draw their water supplies.

"That was our concern," she said. "You don't necessarily know the quantities of materials that could come from many different wells," said Staaf, who called Tuesday's action by the state "an incredibly positive step forward."

"While there are "several possible sources for bromide other than shale drilling wastewater," Krancer said the state believes that if drilling "operators would stop giving wastewater to facilities that continue to accept it … bromide concentrations would quickly and significantly decrease."

Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for driller Range Resources, said the company supports the DEP's action.

"One of the criticisms of the Marcellus industry is that we aren't thinking long-term," he said. "This shows our concern."

Pitzarella added that the industry believes "these issues are manageable and we were going to rely on science to solve them. At this point, I think the science is clear that it's causing a problem and we can treat the water without sending it to grandfathered treatment plants."

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-pa-shale-water-pollution-20110419,0,4278373.story

Pa.: Marcellus wastewater shouldn't go to treatment plants
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
By Don Hopey and Sean D. Hamill, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11109/1140412-100-0.stm#ixzz1K59V5kzWBecause of high levels of dissolved solids and bromide in rivers and streams used for public drinking water sources, the state Department of Environmental Protection has asked all Marcellus Shale operations to voluntarily stop disposal of drilling wastewater at 15 municipal sewage treatment plants.

The request -- specifically not a departmental "order" that carries legal weight -- asks drillers to halt a wastewater disposal practice that had been criticized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups but that the DEP had allowed at the select facilities despite tighter water discharge standards passed in December.

The DEP requested, with Gov. Tom Corbett's approval, that drillers stop taking Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater to municipal "grandfathered" treatment facilities after May 19.

Those facilities are, the Clairton City Municipal Authority and McKeesport City Municipal Authority, both in Allegheny County; Johnstown Redevelopment Authority, Cambria County; Ridgway Borough, Elk County; Franklin Township Sewage Authority, Greene County; Tunnelton Liquids Co. and Hart Resource Technologies Inc., both in Indiana County; Brockway Area Sewage Authority, Punxsutawney Borough Municipal Authority and Reynoldsville Borough Authority, all in Jefferson County; New Castle City Sanitation Authority, Lawrence County; Sunbury Generation, Snyder County; Franklin Brine Treatment Corp., Venango County; Waste Treatment Corp., Warren County; and the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority, Westmoreland County.

"We believe we can achieve voluntary compliance," said Katy Gresh, a DEP spokeswoman. "At 30 days we will revisit this and see how many comply. We could then use our authority to take the next step with the treatment facilities or drilling industry or both."

At about the same time the DEP made its request Tuesday morning, the Marcellus Shale Coalition said for the first time that drilling wastewater discharges into rivers and streams were partly responsible for higher levels of certain pollutants that have been measured in public waterways in Western Pennsylvania.

"Research by Carnegie Mellon University and Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority experts suggests that the natural gas industry is a contributing factor to elevated levels of bromide in the Allegheny and Beaver Rivers," said Kathryn Klaber, president and executive director of the coalition of Marcellus Shale drilling industry companies. "We are committed to leading efforts, and working alongside DEP and other stakeholders, to address these issues quickly and straightforwardly, and support the appropriate action taken by DEP today."

The drilling wastewater contains high concentrations of dissolved solids, including bromides, a non-toxic salt compound that reacts with disinfectants used by municipal treatment plants to create brominated trihalomethanes, also known as THMs. Studies show a link between ingestion of and exposure to THMs and several types of cancer and birth defects.

"While the prior administration allowed certain facilities to continue to take this wastewater, conditions have changed since the implementation of the TDS regulations," DEP Secretary Michael Krancer said today. "We now have more definitive scientific data, improved technology and increased voluntary wastewater recycling by industry."



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11109/1140412-100-0.stm#ixzz1K597xPGI

The Independent State vs PA Ludicrous: Export Marcellus Shale Gas to China

Pa. Congressman backs export of shale gas - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Congressman Glenn "GT" Thompson

says he favors exporting Marcellus shale natural gas to countries like China that do not have free trade agreements with the United States.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_733052.html#ixzz1K4Ick5U2

Wow. That's an astonishing statement in and of itself. What do we have free trade agreements with other countries for if not to 'open up' trade with our own country?

China hasn't exactly opened up its economy to our products for some time now. Meanwhile, the United States permits any number of products from China into our country which has accomplished one thing and one thing only. A huge trade deficit between China and the United States.

The United States fares no better with countries with which it has engaged in so-called free trade agreements. Massive trade deficits!

Yet this U.S. Congressman not only wants to export our gas from Marcellus Shale drilling based on a projected 'probable' 'surplus,' he wants to do so with China because it has not entered into any free trade agreement with the United States.

If this isn't the most ludicrous train of thought what is?

a major problem with the idea to export any surplus is the way in which issues have been handled or rather a lack of handling of issues such as the absolute, not probable, safety of Marcellus Shale drilling in the state.

In addition, according to a local (Carmichaels, Fayette County, PA) Municipal Water Authority (unelected) board official, there are far more than an acknowledged seven water treatment plants across the state that are reportedly unable to handle any potential or real contamination situations that occur with the hydrolic fracturing after-flow.

Now one of our illustrious FEDERAL legislators is willing to publicly announce exporting to China is the way to go because, because... there "probably" will be a 'surplus' of gas that we need to sell and sell elsewhere to China. the reason to sell to China, he says: they are not a free trade participant!

Is this man out of his mind?

So our infrastructure is lacking, now.

Yet, any surplus drilling in the state produces will be shipped off to China, rather than held in reserves for our own state.

Oh what is the slogan of our state: State of Independence

There is a ray of hope as noted in comments by Two major industry groups cited in the article.

CLIP

The American Public Gas Association, with over 700 members in 36 states, wrote the Department of Energy that "the export of natural gas is inconsistent with a policy of energy independence."

And the Industrial Energy Consumer of America, which represent manufacturing companies with a combined $800 billion in annual sales word the DOE that exporting gas "has the potential" of increasing manufacturing costs which could "result in loss of manufacturing jobs."

Read more: Pa. Congressman backs export of shale gas - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_733052.html#ixzz1K4PIeUwT

Exporting of natural gas = inconsistent with a policy of energy independence

Could not be any more logical of a conclusion, something even a Fifth Grader could answer very adequately on an essay test.

What must we do to ensure this does not happen with PA gas from Marcellus Shale drilling?

1. Don't be anti-drilling or expect a moratorium on drilling
2. Hold our legislators and regulators accountable for non-enforcement of existing regulations
3. Lobby to enable localities to benefit directly from the gas production by divving up the gas to all homes and businesses within a county jurisdiction
4. Protest to stop the flow of our natural resource to China.
5. Instead of an 'export' center build a gas reserves center with any surplus.

Every home and every business should get a tax credit for converting to gas and the cost should be fair for such conversions.

While we oppose any new and burdensome gas extraction tax and support Gov. Tom Corbett's recent remarks regarding such, we cannot accept no imminent action on the part of Gov. Corbett to demonstrate the PA water treatment facilities are or will shortly be made to be able to handle any contamination situations if and when those are shown to occur.

Net the Truth Online

Pa. Congressman backs export of shale gas

By Lou Kilzer
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Pennsylvania Congressman Glenn "GT" Thompson says he favors exporting Marcellus shale natural gas to countries like China that do not have free trade agreements with the United States.

Thompson -- whose Fifth District is the state's largest in area and sits squarely atop the massive Marcellus fields in northern and central Pennsylvania, acknowledges in a Tribune-Review interview that this position on exporting might appear to contradict his previous statements favoring Marcellus shale exploration so that America can secure its energy future and wean itself from foreign dependency.

But the congressman says that's only because the situation with exploration has rapidly changed. He said he now believes the United States could eventually find itself with a surplus of gas with no place to go.

"The fact is, we have a bountiful amount of it (natural gas)," he said. "We could probably be in a position to meet our energy needs and, if need be, be able to export."

Thompson and 15 other members of Congress signed a letter late last year encouraging President Barack Obama to allow exporting 16 million metric tons per year of U.S. liquefied natural gas from Sabine Pass in Louisiana to countries who don't have free trade pacts with America...

CLIP CONTINUES


Thompson said he supports a similar export facility under consideration at Dominion Energy's Cove Point LNG terminal and port in Maryland. That terminal could be used to export Marcellus shale gas.

"We are in a global economy today and exports are a part of that," Thompson said. He noted that "China will obviously be the largest consumer of energy."

Thompson's comments to the Trib appear to differ from what was displayed Tuesday on his congressional Web page. The page includes comments like these from a February press release: "Situations like that in Egypt continue to underscore the need to cease America`s reliance on foreign energy. Our prosperity as a nation is dependent upon access to sustainable, low-cost energy and I will continue to push for a comprehensive energy plan that meets these demands, promotes American energy and builds a foundation for long-term economic growth and security."

In another release, he said: "affordable energy is vital to our economy and national security. High energy costs slow job growth, increase the costs to industries and of products and squeezes household budgets."

CLIP CONTINUES


John Noel Bartlett, a retired 62-year-old from Oil City, said he "had never thought of exporting" natural gas obtained beneath the state's soil. "I think most residents of Pennsylvania believe this was being done for energy independence and didn`t think of it as exporting," he said.

Bartlet said those willing to compromise on environmental issues for America's energy independence might rethink their position if the nation becomes a mass exporter of natural gas. He added that not taxing the gas is "foolish."

There are presently no gas exporting facilities in the lower 48 states. The Department of Energy says its decision to allow or not allow the Sabine Pass port to start operating would set a precedent for the United States.

Anticipating approval, the operator of Sabine Pass, Houston-based Cheniere Energy Inc., has already signed a memorandum of understanding with a Chinese company to send it 1.5 million tons of LNG per year.

"We are excited to participate in supplying natural gas to China," said Chiniere CEO Charif Souki in a news release.

In all, six American companies are considering exporting natural gas, according to a report by Barclays Capital released last week in New York.

CLIP CONTINUES


Two major industry groups disagree with any decision to export gas.
T
he American Public Gas Association, with over 700 members in 36 states, wrote the Department of Energy that "the export of natural gas is inconsistent with a policy of energy independence."

And the Industrial Energy Consumer of America, which represent manufacturing companies with a combined $800 billion in annual sales word the DOE that exporting gas "has the potential" of increasing manufacturing costs which could "result in loss of manufacturing jobs."

Read more: Pa. Congressman backs export of shale gas - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_733052.html#ixzz1K4EUfMvp

Gov. Tom Corbett right on no drilling taxation wrong on flow to China

We side with PA Governor Tom Corbett's position to not tax Marcellus Shale drilling extraction. The Republican Governor understands taxation with representation is a jobs killer, and incentive and innovation killers, as well.

However, there are a host of concerns about the drilling process in PA and the new Gov. should be more than willing to hold state agencies and all state legislators accountable for inadequate oversight.

Gov. Corbett should initiate a complete review for instance of any former complaints which made their way to agencies regarding illegal dumping. He should do this today.

Tomorrow is too late.

Any abuses discovered should be met with more than steep fines. Probation would be in order. A grace period given to rectify any identified abuses or violations should be given, but scrutiny should follow.

Two strikes against a company and that company should be out of contention in PA. Go elsewhere.

Another situation Gov. Corbett must delve into is the potential, yes the real potential, our gas from our PA wells are going to head to China.

This is simply unacceptable. PA citizens should be the first recipients of this resource.


Corbett remains opposed to taxing natural gas producers


Gov. Tom Corbett yesterday reiterated his opposition to a tax on natural gas pulled from the Marcellus shale but made it clear he will protect the state's environment from chemical contamination by drillers, a stance urged by a new national report.

At a Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors meeting in Hershey, an attendee said drillers "are poisoning our water."

"I will not let them poison the water," Corbett responded. "We have to protect the water. We must do it on science, not emotion."

The governor may look to research released over the weekend by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which found shale gas drillers nationwide used 29 hazardous chemicals in drilling fluids from 2005-09. Pennsylvania wasn't among the states in which drillers were found to be widely using such chemicals in the process.

"Let's take a look at what the science is," Corbett said when asked about the report. He did not elaborate on how the state would protect water supplies. A spokeswoman at the state Department of Environmental Protection declined a request for comment.

The state should use the study — based on self-reports from drillers — to figure out which chemicals to better monitor in drilling wastewater, said Myron Arnowitt, state director of Clean Water Action.

In brief comparisons of states based on how much drillers used the most harmful chemicals, including known carcinogens and chemicals regulated by federal environmental law, Pennsylvania ranked in the bottom half or not at all.

Arnowitt noted that widespread drilling in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale didn't start until the last two years of the study. Still, drillers' use in the state of nearly 750,000 gallons of 2-butoxyethanol, which at high exposure can destroy blood cells and damage organs, ranked sixth out of 10 states, according to the report.

Read more: Corbett remains opposed to taxing natural gas producers - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_732919.html#ixzz1JySqkinM

WENY-TV Asks Why Discrepancy Between States List Marcellus Shale Hydrofraking chemicals

List of PA Marcellus Shale Hydrofracking Chemicals Revealed (VIDEO)
Jeevan Vittal

June 29, 2010

ELMIRA (WENY) – The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is planning to release a complete list of chemicals used in hydro racking.

WENY-TV was able to obtain an early copy. The list contains every day substances ranging from sugar and table salt to more toxic ones like formaldehyde.

Some of the chemical compounds are associated with neurological problems and other health issues - environmental advocates are worried the chemicals are poisoning underground drinking water.

It’s believed to be the first complete catalog of natural gas drilling chemicals used to drill in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.

This DEP list only mentions about 85 chemicals.

We crosschecked this with list of known chemicals from New York State, which has about 200 more chemicals on it.

We’re working with experts to break these lists down for you, and find o0ut why the lists vary so much from state to state.

http://www.weny.com/news-local.asp?ARTICLE3864=9154484

Also see comment posting to article

Drilling water ban a boon?
Official: EPA ruling could mean more volume at plant
April 20, 2011

Apr-20-11 1:59 AM Agree | Disagree

"Drilling water ban a boon?"

Are you kidding me??? Pennsylvania bans this toxic mixture, and you're excited to welcome it here in Warren? do the research before you act like it's just "waste water", theres some bad stuff in that water & I don't want to drink it - do you? "some of the 85 fracking chemicals listed by the Pennsylvania DEP are xylene, toluene and tetramethylammonium chloride - chemicals that can lead, with prolonged exposure, to liver damage in humans and can even be fatal."

Stop killing everyone just to make a quick buck. Have a nice day!

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.comment/id/555860/Drilling-water-ban-a-boon-.html?nav=5021

AP: PA accused of rubber-stamping gas permits

Channel 2 KTVN News Report out of Allentown

ALSO SEE PENNLIVE

Pennsylvania regulators say they spend little time reviewing Marcellus Shale drilling permits
By The Associated Press The Patriot-News | Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 2:36 PM

DEP staffers' testimony calls into question whether regulators are overburdened and merely rubber-stamping gas-well permit applications.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/pennsylvania_regulators_say_th.html

Comments on Article

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/pennsylvania_regulators_say_th/3032/comments-2.html

AP: PA accused of rubber-stamping gas permits
Posted: Apr 13, 2011 10:19 AM EDT
Updated: Apr 15, 2011 2:25 AM EDT
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
Associated Press
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - Pennsylvania environmental regulators say they spend as little as 35 minutes reviewing each of the thousands of applications for natural gas well permits they get each year from drillers intent on tapping the state's lucrative and vast Marcellus Shale reserves.

And the regulators say they do not give any additional scrutiny to requests to drill near high-quality streams and rivers even though the waterways are protected by state and federal law.

Staffers in the state Department of Environmental Protection testified behind closed doors last month as part of a lawsuit filed by residents and environmental groups over a permit that DEP issued for an exploratory gas well in northeastern Pennsylvania, less than a half-mile from the Delaware River and about 300 feet from a pristine stream.

Reporting by the AP suggests that applications are rubber-stamped, rushed through with little scrutiny and rarely rejected. The staffers' statements indicate that DEP regulators are overburdened - and possibly ignoring environmental laws - as they struggle to deal with an unprecedented drilling boom that has turned Pennsylvania into a major natural gas player and raised fears about polluted aquifers and air.

The agency has denied few requests to drill in the Marcellus Shale formation, the world's second-largest gas field. Of the 7,019 applications that DEP has processed since 2005, only 31 have been rejected - less than one-half of one percent.

"Even those of us who are skeptics of the DEP, I think we all want to assume that they're doing the basics. And they're really just not," said Jordan Yeager, a plaintiffs' attorney who is challenging the drilling permit awarded to Newfield Appalachia PA LLC, a unit of Houston-based Newfield Exploration Co.

The agency declined to comment about any aspect of its permit review process, even to answer general questions.

But the depositions of four DEP staffers responsible for processing permits - taken in late March and filed with a regional water agency this week - reveal that:

- The agency doesn't consider potential impacts on legally protected high-quality watersheds, beyond checking that wells meet minimum setbacks required of all gas wells in the state.

- Staffers don't consider whether proposed gas wells comply with municipal or regional zoning and planning laws.

- They don't consider the cumulative impact of wide-scale development of wells in a concentrated area.

- They appear to have a fuzzy understanding of laws that are supposed to govern their work. A supervisor was unable to define the requirements of a key anti-degradation regulation that says pristine waterways "shall be maintained and protected," while a geologist said he didn't know that streams and rivers legally designated as "high quality" or "exceptional value" are entitled to an extra layer of protection.

http://www.ktvn.com/story/14437619/ap-pa-accused-of-rubber-stamping-gas-permits?redirected=true

Also see comments

distcoach2

Anyone who is interested in knowing what chemicals are being used (well, at least those not hidden under the misused "trade secret" rock) can find same at http:///fracfocus.org Note that the list as currently set up only pertains to those used since 1/1/11 and so the list is a bit lacking at this point. But it is promised that the list will grown as more wells are drilled and that it may eventually be inclusive for those thousands of wells drilled before 1/1/11...

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/pennsylvania_regulators_say_th.html

Also see

List PA Marcellus Shale Hydrofracking Chemicals Revealed (VIDEO)
Jeevan Vittal


http://www.weny.com/news-local.asp?ARTICLE3864=9154484

Known Charade Lil Difference Between Them Worth Highlighting

The Goal Is Freedom | Sheldon Richman
Saving the Warfare-Welfare State
The difference is over means not ends

...Thus we see Obama’s basic agreement with Ryan’s wing of the uniparty, though the latter would rely on the tax-funded “private” sector more than the former would. Of course each side highlights the differences to make them appear to be matters of kind rather than degree or method. This way each can keep its base rhetorically satisfied (or try). Obama’s team talks about the need for the rich to sacrifice to the middle class and poor, while Ryan’s team counters that the private sector is where the action should be. Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting to end Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (they don’t), while Republicans accuse Democrats of being Marxian socialists (they’re not).

But here’s the thing: Both seek to retain the fundamental status quo in which the State parcels out favors to reigning interests while providing succor to the vulnerable in a combined spirit of charity and fear. Fear of what? In the case of the elderly, fear of their political clout at the ballot box; in the case of those shut out the economic system because of lousy government schools, occupational licensing, and cartelization via the subsidy and regulatory regime, fear of a frustration that could turn into unrest.

Globally the Obama side emphasizes the supposed humanitarian rationale for military intervention while his internecine rivals emphasize the security rationale. But they agree on the premise — that it is the proper job of the U.S. government to police the world, at least where there is oil and other things coveted by the ruling elite.

Thus The Charade continues.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/saving-warfare-welfare-state/

PA Marcellus Shale Local Zoning Not Pre-empted by Oil and Gas Act

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Upholds Fayette County Zoning Ordinance
Posted: August 15, 2010
Outcome of a Fayette County court case involving a zoning ordinance
by Michael A. Magee, Research Assistant
On July 22, the Commonwealth Court ruled that Fayette County’s (Fayette) zoning ordinance was not preempted by Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act (OGA). Penneco Oil Co., Inc. v. County of Fayette, No. 18 C.D. 2010, 2010 WL 2853639. Fayette’s ordinance allows wells in residential, industrial, and airport zones, but only by special exception upon the satisfaction of specified conditions.
OGA expressly preempts local regulation of oil and gas operations except for ordinances passed under the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) or the Flood Plain Management Act. Further, MPC-based enactments like Fayette’s ordinance are preempted if they share OGA’s purposes or if they regulate features of oil and gas operations addressed by OGA. 58 PA. STAT. § 601.602. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed OGA preemption of municipal ordinances in Huntley & Huntley v. Borough Council, 964 A.2d 855, and Range Res. v. Salem Twp., 964 A.2d 869. These cases established the framework under which all OGA preemption issues are analyzed. In Penneco, the Commonwealth Court found Fayette’s ordinance to be generally applicable, affecting oil and gas wells only with regard to their location. Furthermore, the court found that although Fayette’s zoning ordinance overlapped with OGA’s purposes to a certain degree, its primary effect on oil and gas operations was to ensure the continued vitality of neighborhoods and to encourage compatible land use. These traditional zoning purposes, the court determined, were distinct from OGA’s purposes. For more information on this case, please visit the Case Law section of the Natural Gas Resource Area on the Agricultural Law Center Web site.
From the August 2010 edition of the Penn State Dickinson School of Law, Agricultural Law Brief

http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas/news/2010/08/pennsylvania-commonwealth-court-upholds-fayette-county-zoning-ordinance

Ruling gives towns power over drillers Published: August 23, 2010 By Elizabeth Skrapits

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=68202649949&topic=14121

Would local officials be powerless to stop a natural gas company from drilling a natural gas well in the middle of a housing development?

Not according to a new state court ruling, which affirms the right of municipal and county officials to limit natural gas drilling to certain districts, such as agricultural, mining or manufacturing, and out of residential neighborhoods.

Three new court decisions were outlined by attorney Jeffrey Malak during a recent meeting of the Back Mountain Community Partnership in Luzerne County.

The latest decision, Penneco Oil Co. Inc. v. the County of Fayette, "...opens up the floodgates and says municipal zoning is not pre-empted" by the state Oil and Gas Act, Mr. Malak said. The case was decided in Commonwealth Court on July 22.

Traditionally, local officials have limited say when it comes to natural gas drilling. Technical aspects, such as what kind of materials to use and how the well is drilled, are governed by the state Oil and Gas Act. But local officials are gaining more and more say in where wells can be drilled.

Two previous cases, Huntley & Huntley v. Oakmont Borough and Range Resources v. Salem Twp. (Westmoreland County) set precedents allowing local officials some leeway in regulating where natural gas companies can drill.

Now the Penneco Oil Co. Inc. v. the County of Fayette decision says the state Oil & Gas Act does not trump local zoning ordinances, and that local officials can take steps to protect the residential character of neighborhoods, Mr. Malak said.

In the case, Penneco, Range Resources Appalachia LLC and the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania took Fayette County office of planning, zoning and community development to court, saying it did not have to follow the county's zoning ordinance because the state Oil and Gas Act made it invalid. The court ruled in favor of the county.

The Penneco case allows that gas wells cannot be located within the flight path of an airport runway; that they must be at least 200 feet from a residential dwelling; and that officials can require fencing and shrubs around the well site. It also allows zoning hearing boards to impose any other provisions to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents.

Mr. Malak also said local officials can require a land development plan from natural gas companies, and they can require special exceptions, meaning there has to be a hearing in front of the zoning hearing board to grant permission and to impose any standard planning and zoning fees, in response to another question.

But, he said, there are still aspects of natural gas drilling that will have to be decided in court, such as whether there can be restrictions on hours drillers can operate and whether they can be barred from using roads at certain times.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/ruling-gives-towns-power-over-drillers-1.968103

Contact the writer: eskrapits@citizensvoice.com

ZONING AND OIL & GAS ACT PREEMPTION
Penneco Oil Company, Inc. v. County of Fayette, 2010 WL
2853639 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)
Background
On November 1, 2006, Fayette County adopted a Zoning Ordinance.
On or about August 7, 2007, Penneco filed a complaint against
Fayette County and on or about May 5, 2008, Penneco filed, by
consent, an amended complaint primarily alleging that the Zoning
Ordinance is preempted by the Oil & Gas Act and requesting that the
trial court declare the Zoning Ordinance invalid.

Penneco Oil Company, Inc. v. County of Fayette
• Fayette’s Zoning Ordinance allowed oil and gas wells by “special exception” in
five zoning districts. The extent of Zoning Ordinance provisions that dealt
specifically with the granting of a special exception for oil and gas wells were the
following:
A. An oil or gas well shall not be located within the flight path of a runway
facility of an airport.
B. An oil or gas well shall not be located closer than two-hundred (200) feet
from residential dwelling or fifty-(50) feet from any property line or right-ofway.
C. An oil or gas well shall provide fencing and shrubbery around perimeter of
the pump head and support frame.
D. The Zoning Hearing Board may attach additional conditions pursuant to
this section, in order to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. These
conditions may include but are not limited to increased setbacks.

Penneco Oil Company, Inc. v. County of Fayette
Penneco and its co-plaintiffs, Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC
and the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania,
argued that the Zoning Ordinance was pre-empted.

Penneco Oil Company, Inc. v. County of Fayette
Rulings
• The Fayette Zoning Ordinance did not pertain to the technical aspects
of well functioning and ancillary matters, but rather to “preserving
the character of residential neighborhoods, and encouraging
beneficial and compatible land uses.”
• “The fact that the zoning hearing board may attach additional
conditions to a grant of a special exception does not result in the
conclusion that the Zoning Ordinance provides arbitrary authority to
deny permission to drill.”
• “[T]hat the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance do not reflect an
attempt by Fayette County to enact a comprehensive regulatory
scheme relative to the oil and gas development within the county but
instead reflect traditional zoning regulations that identify which uses
are permitted in different areas of the locality. The Zoning Ordinance,
on its face, is clearly a zoning ordinance of general applicability like
the ordinance in Huntley.

Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance is not preempted by the Act.”

http://www.pbi.org/resources/extras/6753_oil_gas/Burcat.pdf

more on pre-emption

Company files suit over gas ordinance By Scott Beveridge, Staff writer sbeveridge@observer-reporter.com

This article has been read 4879 times.

A company wanting to drill Marcellus Shale natural gas wells in North Bethlehem Township is suing the municipality in Washington County Court, claiming its zoning ordinance is unconstitutional and prohibiting the firm from doing business.
Delaware-based Rice Drilling, with local offices in Southpointe, is asking the court for an injunction to declare invalid the township's new ordinance regulating the oil and gas well industry, court records show.
The company claims the ordinance sets the locations of wells near houses, public buildings and streams in distances beyond the scope of those set in the state Oil and Gas Act. The company also claims the state Department of Environmental Protection oversees the industry, not local municipalities, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday. The five-count lawsuit further claims the ordinance is unreasonable and had been drafted and approved in March without proper public notice.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/localnews/04-07-2011-North-Beth-gas-lawsuit

The Law : 4/7/2011
Perhaps I am not aware of more recent developments, but in at least 3 separate cases, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that local zoning ordinances take precedence over the State's Oil and Gas Act in reference to various aspects of oil/gas wells. A quote from The Times-Tribune (August 23, 2010) is as follows: Now the Penneco Oil Co. Inc. v. the County of Fayette decision says the state Oil & Gas Act does not trump local zoning ordinances.... The full article is available online.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/localnews/04-07-2011-North-Beth-gas-lawsuit

Pennsylvania Proposes Oil & Gas Well Casing and Cementing Rules

Pennsylvania Proposes Oil & Gas Well Casing and Cementing Rules
This post was written by Nicolle Snyder Bagnell and Ariel Nieland.
On July 10, 2010, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) published its proposed rulemaking measures to update existing state requirements for drilling, casing, cementing, testing, monitoring and plugging of oil and gas wells. The proposed rulemaking, originally adopted by the EQB in May, is now open for public comment until August 9, 2010. Once the period for public comment is over, the proposal will go before the Pennsylvania Independent Regulatory Review Commission for review and final publication.
According to the EQB, a large portion of the updates contained in the proposal are already employed as part of best management practices among operators. However, the new regulations are said to further decrease any risk of gas migration from well sites to neighboring water supplies. The proposed rulemaking was prompted, in part, by public concern over the potential impact that the increasing number of Marcellus Shale wells could have on groundwater and drinking water supplies. Although the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's review of current well site construction and operation practices revealed that "many, if not all, Marcellus well operators met or exceeded the current well casing and cementing regulations[,] . . . the current regulations were not specific enough" in detailing guidelines for proper well construction or requirements for operators to respond to complaints over gas migration. The current updates would provide for more specificity in these areas, as well as establish a requirement that well operators conduct quarterly inspections of the structural integrity of all wells in operation.

http://www.environmentallawresource.com/tags/marcellus-shale/

EPA announces scope of new hydraulic fracturing study

EPA announces scope of new hydraulic fracturing study

http://energyforumonline.com/2950/epa-announces-scope-of-new-hydraulic-fracturing-study/

Congress
Former Bush EPA official says fracking exemption went too far; Congress should revisit by Abrahm Lustgarten
ProPublica, March 9, 2011
When Benjamin Grumbles was assistant administrator for water at the Environmental Protection Agency in the George W. Bush administration, he oversaw the release of a 2004 EPA report that determined that hydraulic fracturing was safe for drinking water. Then he watched as Congress used those findings to bolster the case for passing a law that prohibited the EPA from regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Q: In the 2004 EPA study, which examined hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane gas wells, a commission of experts concluded that the process "poses little or no threat" to underground sources of drinking water. That study has since been criticized. Where do you stand?

I saw that there were accusations, by Congressman (Henry) Waxman and Congresswoman (Diana) DeGette, that somehow politics were involved in that commission, or that it was too heavily slanted towards an industry perspective and that there were not enough environmental groups on that commission. There was also an employee in Denver who claimed whistle-blower status and felt that there was a greater risk to groundwater than was being acknowledged. Honestly, I never felt that the claims had much merit.

The career employees reviewing the report were quite comfortable with the integrity and product of that commissioned report. So, they recommended to me that hydraulic fracturing was not the type of threat that should be as high a priority as other types of threats to drinking water supplies. They took great offense to some of the other accusations that were made that the commission was biased in some way.

Q: You've said the study was never intended to be a "clean bill of health." Can you explain?

When we got the report, it was a snapshot in time. It was a thorough review describing the issues. Whether it's hydraulic fracturing or any other type of practice that can have an impact on the environment, one single report shouldn't be the basis for a perpetual, never-ending policy decision.

It wasn't meant to be a bill of health saying 'well, this practice is fine. Exempt it in all respects from any regulation.' I'm sure that wasn't the intent of the panel of experts, and EPA never viewed it that way. That's one reason why we were urging Congress to say 'look, if you are going to issue an exemption, ensure that it is not perpetual.'

Q: You're referring to the exemption passed by Congress as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which prohibited the regulation of fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. What did you think about the idea of an exemption?

The career staff and I felt that when Congress provides a permanent exemption in an environmental statute, they need to be very careful about that and they need to have some built-in review process or safeguards so that if there is a risk presented, either the states or the EPA can then revisit it.

Q: The EPA's 2004 report did find that diesel fluid in fracturing presented a risk to groundwater. How was this addressed?

The former administrator [of water] Tracy Mehan recognized that under current law the agency was not regulating or prohibiting diesel fluids from being used in the hydraulic fracturing process, so he signed, on behalf of the EPA, an MOU [memo of understanding] with major companies that have a major stake in this, voluntarily getting them to commit not to use diesel fluids for the hydraulic fracturing process.

Based on current law and what tools we had, I felt this was a positive step. And it was a sincere step forward for us to make sure that we were engaged with the industry and engaged in the sense that they knew we were watching this and knew that it could be a problem if they used this sort of a process.

Q: And now we learn from some members of Congress that diesel use continued despite those efforts ...

It's disappointing, and the agency needs to follow up and ensure that the industry is providing accurate and timely information.

I think if the information is true that industry withheld information or misled regulators or the policy makers, then that is serious, and they need to provide all the relevant information they have.

http://www.propublica.org/article/former-bush-epa-official-says-fracking-exemption-went-too-far

Sen. Inhofe
The Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted in 1974 to establish drinking water standards and to control permanent disposal of waste by underground injection. By 1974, hydraulic fracturing had been in commercial operation for 25 years. This law was not designed nor intended to regulate the practice and the legislative history demonstrates that. The 1974 conference report states that none of the Act’s underground injection provisions are to “needlessly interfere with oil or gas production.” In fact, the 1980 amendments were probably the most significant until 2005 for clarifying the Act’s application to oil and gas operations. The 1980 amendments created a new section 1425 to allow States to regulate underground injection from two types of oil and gas operations known as injection wells and disposal wells. However, given the chance to additionally address hydraulic fracturing, Congress declined. In the 2005 Energy Bill, Congress specifically clarified the Act is not intended to apply to hydraulic fracturing.
There are a myriad of federal statutes such as federal workplace rules, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, among others which regulate the storage and disposal, transporting, handling, and reporting of chemical use. Federal law requires disclosure of any release to the environment. Those statutes overlay state laws which also include extensive rules permitting oil and gas drilling and production. No state has been required to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act with the exception of Alabama. The 11th Circuit issued an opinion in 1997 ignoring legislative history, oil and gas industry practices, and the clear text of the law, finding that Alabama should subject hydraulic fracturing in coal bed methane production to the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, hydraulic fracturing has not been subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act and is not correctly governed by the Act.
I am not alone in this opinion. President Obama’s Energy Czar agrees with me. In 1995, as EPA Administrator, Carol Browner wrote in response to litigation that federal regulation is not necessary for hydraulic fracturing. She correctly made the point that the practice was closely regulated by the states and, “EPA is not legally required to regulate hydraulic fracturing.” Most importantly, she further wrote that there was “no evidence that hydraulic fracturing resulted in any drinking water contamination” in the litigation involved…
… As early as 1998, the Ground Water Protection Council conducted the first survey of the 25 states in which hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas production occurs for any complaints of groundwater contamination. The survey reported no instance of contamination from the practice. In 2002, the IOGCC representing 37 states conducted its own survey making the same findings. On June 12, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission addressed the issue of hydraulic fracturing again in correspondence with the IOGCC. The Corporation Commission wrote that it has been regulating oil and gas drilling and production for 90 years which has included tens of thousands of hydraulic fracturing operations over the past 60 years. The Commission wrote, “You asked whether there has been a verified instance of harm to groundwater in our state from the practice of hydraulic fracturing. The answer is no.”
States have been regulating oil and gas exploration and production for years. The Department of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council released a report in May titled, “State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources” where it described state regulations which require multiple barriers, casings, and cement reinforcement to protect against groundwater contamination. Fracturing involves removing thousands of gallons of water from the well which includes the fracturing fluids. Once these fluids are returned to the surface, regulations require they are treated, stored, and isolated from ground water zones. All these processes together work to significantly reduce risk to groundwater. This DOE and GWPC report ultimately concluded that federal regulations on fracturing would be “costly, duplicative of state regulations, and ultimately ineffective because such regulations would be too far removed from field operations.” Equally interesting, the report also concluded that the “only alternative to fracturing in reservoirs with low permeability such as shale would be to simply have to drill more wells.” These findings mirror the EPA’s 2004 report of hydraulic fracturing in CMB production. EPA noted that fracturing involves the removal of thousands of gallons of ground water. This removal includes the fracturing fluids and the possibility that fracturing chemicals effect groundwater. EPA also concluded that the low permeability of rock where hydraulic fracturing is used acts as a barrier to any remnant of fracturing chemicals moving out of the rock formation. None of these findings are new. In the 1980 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, Congress acknowledged, “32 states that regulate underground injection related to production of oil and gas believe they have programs already in place to meet the requirements of this Act….States should be able to continue these programs unencumbered with additional federal requirements.”

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=be41bb58-802a-23ad-4d98-221b947cb212