Draft Marcellus Resolution of November 17, 2011

Sounds like all that "big gas" advertising has won out again. Given that this is not a law to ban Marcellus drilling, but merely a policy statement opposing the same, I am shocked and disappointed at the resolution's failure to be enacted. For all the talk against the same, it appears it was just that: talk.

I am a "tree hugger". I am now the only living county resident to have donated a conservation easement to the Farm Land Protection Board (Emma Beard, now deceased, did also). I do not need to justify my bone fides for environmental protection. So why vote no to this resolution? First, the timing of it was wrong. The approach to the whole issue of Marcellus shale drilling has been ill timed in that I and my fellow Commissioners reacted as if the sky were falling before gathering up all the facts. When everyone heard about the leases (40,000 acres in our county) and saw "Gas Land" and went to Wetzel County it did look as though the "end was near". Then I thought I should look at the geology, so I spoke at length with the geology departments at WVU and Marshall and was told what was recently published in the Pocahontas Times: Drilling here is unlikely due to factors of geology rendering the shale poor or marginal in gas quality, lack of adjacent infrastructure, economics of gas prices and the fact that there are other "fairways" far far richer which have all the elements of critical mass in the western and northern part of the State. Now geology is not exact like mathematics and, perhaps, there could be pockets of shale gas of value, but from seeing Wetsel County, I understand that the phenomena requires huge supporting infrastructure and numerous wells to pay of that infrastructure; one or two wells can not economically stand alone.
When aiming in politics, I feel one needs to be sure of the target and use the right caliber for the purpose. In our case, the target turned out to be different and smaller and less threatening than first sighted from far away. The "zoning" ordinance was grossly unnecessary and I think unenforceable and, as seen, hugely antagonistic to elements in the community against land use restrictions. Following such a tidal wave of opposition with the resolution was politically inopportune, to say the least.
Ok, here it is in a nutshell: For generations land owners have managed their property well, so well in fact, that all of us regularly swoon at the beauty of the farm and community landscape. Regulations of land use are seen as "offensive" to the good work and stewardship of owners. Seen as unnecessary and controlling. Seen as a class warfare, seen as conflicting values between outsiders and locals. The uneasiness of the love affair with Snowshoe reflects this detente. So why on earth follow up the donnybrook on Tuesday night with another round Thursday of something seen as telling people what to do. Especially, when no enemy was at the ramparts and the field, but for our missteps, lay quiet.
Yes the county needs a statement. I am writing to all those who opposed the resolution asking them what positive statement can they make in support of clean water. Will that stop drilling? No. Will that help us find a common ground, yes perhaps.
I voted no because I had no other reasonable vote in view of the reality of all the facts: geology, law and politics.

Most leases require drilling within a limited period. Seven years is common. If the driller does not drill within the required period, it loses the lease. If it does drill within the designated period and gas is produced, the lease stays in effect so long as gas is being produced or longer depending on the terms of the lease. It has seemed to me that drillers wouldn’t have paid good money for the leases here unless they intended to drill. Therefore, the idea that unfavorable geology will prevent drilling goes against where the money is going.

But maybe there was simply so much investment money available for the Marcellus that was looking to be spent that it spilled into Pocahontas County in spite of the unfavorable geology. This seems doubtful to me, but it might be so.

Mr. Saffer says we should bet on no drilling. He says the odds of drilling are so low that the fight to enact a zoning ordinance is not worth the trouble. That would be particularly so for him. Passing an ordinance would involve troubling, contentious meetings. It would decrease his chances of re-election. It might have an effect on his law practice. I’m not saying that these are insignificant consequences for Mr. Saffer. They are real economic and political factors for him.

It is a little troubling that Mr. Saffer sounded the alarm so strongly about drilling for so long and so loudly. He was very critical of the politicians in Charleston for not doing something about the issue. He repeatedly drove home the fact that drilling would change our whole way of life. He bemoaned the limited power the County Commission had to address the issue.

Then it appeared that there was something the Commission could do. They could enact a zoning ordinance. Morgantown was doing it, and the industry was all but acknowledging that Morgantown was empowered to do so. The lawyer the Commission hired to advise it on the issue (presumably with Mr. Saffer’s vote) advised the Commission that they were empowered to regulate drilling through a zoning ordinance.

At this point Mr. Saffer’s views changed. He decided that there was no real risk of drilling, and got a pro-drilling expert to so advise the Commission. He now compares himself to chicken little. Maybe Mr. Saffer really believes that the sea change in his position is a product of dispassionate consideration of the factors. I often find that a dispassionate consideration of an issue leads me to a view of the issue that favors what is best for me.

Again, maybe the geology of Pocahontas County decreases the odds of the drillers deciding to drill here. Apparently many factors are at play when the decision is made to drill or not drill. The drillers are now telling our Legislature that imposing a ten thousand dollar fee for a well permit might cause West Virginia to be less competitive. The industry says it might forego drilling here in favor of other states that have a cheaper fee.

Taking the industry as its word, wouldn’t a zoning ordinance that imposes barriers to drilling cause the industry to be even more hesitant about making the infrastructure investment that is necessary to develop a gas field in Pocahontas County? Isn’t a zoning ordinance one of the factors that might sway the decision by drillers about whether to come here or go to some other county? If drilling has the catastrophic consequences to the County that Mr. Saffer has always said it has, why shouldn’t we put the zoning obstacle in the way in hopes it will help tip the balance?

By nature, I am not an alarmist or activist; therefore, I have followed this topic from a far. A couple months back I was in your office (Mr. Saffer) and you presented such a lively display on the evils of fracking and the threat to our county that I instantly felt I was not doing enough for the cause. Imagine my surprise to read your "aboutface" on the topic.
It is my understanding that fracking wells are currently under construction in Nicholas County. Perhaps as near as 10 or 15 miles from the Hillsboro area. And if comments from one contractor on that job are accurate, 40+ additional wells will be drilled in the immediate area. I ask if drilling is feasible just west of Kinnison Mnt would it not also prove profitable to do so here. I also read that drillers are not particularly interested in our "fringe area". If this is accurate then why did gas companies lease 40,000 acres and spend piles of money in a county that would not be desirable?

I said this just above "drilling won't happen here". It is a little like when one hears news from a doctor but you have been so worried about being ill you doubt the good news when you get it. And secondly, no action by the Commission can stop drilling. We do not have the legal authority or jurisdiction.to regulate or stop it. This Commission has been unequivocal in its stand on clean water and educating the public about the issues involved. I will continue to do that as long as i am seated on the Commission. But taking a swing at a ball which has not been thrown across our county plate seems to me to invite a protracted fight and litigation which is unnecessary, at least according to the expert opinion we have thus far. It is my understanding that there is follow-up being made with Dr. Carr as to what really is happening in Richwood and further analysis as to what, if anything, that means for us. So one step at a time is my thought.

Before last week, when two special county commission meetings were scheduled to educate county residents about fracking and, possibly, to take action against the same, I believed there were two county commissioners who were committed to doing something based on the courage of their convictions. One commissioner had said, in effect, "But first, show me there is broad support for action within the county - and not the same old hippies who pop up whenever an environmental issue is brewing". So, the Eight Rivers Council was formed and collected 750 signatures from residents and/or land owners who endorsed a ban on fracking. Now, it seems, the invited testimony of a WVU professor who, while he personally has issues with how fracking in conducted in many places, said Pocahontas County is out of the fairway for Marcellus drilling and, besides, with gas prices as low as they are, you should assume drilling will never actually happen here no matter how much was spent on leases. It was as if a bell were rung, signaling that the danger has passed. Now, it seems, there are two commissioners committed to taking no substantive action because the attorneys they've hired counsel caution and the County Commission has no legal authority to act on fracking anyway. Well, the County Commission has just as much legal authority today that it had when all the commotion started. So, what has changed is the conviction that "something must be done to save and protect our fair county." Instead, "we should continue telling the whole world that we oppose the desecration of our clean water and air." Yak, yak, yak. Forgive me if I'm feeling a bit cynical and as if I and other members of the Eight Rivers Council have been hung out to dry. Having encouraged the community to organize against fracking, the County Commission is distancing itself from "those radicals who refuse to see the world as it is."

At ground zero for fracking, residents say water has gone bad
• By ISAAC WOLF Scripps Howard News Service
WETZEL COUNTY, W.Va - When the horses stopped drinking, residents here became convinced of their worst suspicions. The water had gone bad.
Bonnie Hall's eight horses take a lot of water. Fifteen gallons a day, each. Hall was puzzled the November 2008 day the horses left their water bucket untouched.
Hall, who has lived on this isolated mountainside plot for 21 years, figured the horses would eventually drink, and left them alone. It wasn't until the next day, when she came to check on them, that she realized their water was dark.
Now, the horses' drinking water -- drawn from a 300-foot well -- smells like an industrial-strength cleaning solvent.
Hall has shipped in water for her horses ever since, though she's continued to drink water from a much shallower, 30-foot well that inexplicably has remained unaffected. This shallow well frequently goes dry, and cannot provide enough water for the horses, Hall said. Overwhelmed with the burden of shipping water, she's given up two horses and plans to give up two more this winter.
Neighbors had suffered declining health during the fall of 2008. After hearing about Hall's horses, they became convinced that newfound natural gas drilling within about a mile of her property was poisoning their water. Hall and others in this isolated mountain county want drilling companies to fix the water that wasn't bad until the drilling began earlier that summer, they say.
At the center of their grievance is a natural gas-drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." It uses millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and toxic chemicals, to blast open underground rock formations that contain natural gas.
Drilling companies insist that the fluids they use stay securely underground or are captured cleanly when they come back up through the well. But Hall and her neighbors are convinced otherwise.
They live in rural Wetzel County, ground zero for fracking. Located at the southern base of West Virginia's panhandle, Wetzel County sits atop the Marcellus Shale, a gas-rich rock formation stretching from New York to West Virginia. Records show the county hosts 1,126 active wells, many of them frack wells drilled against the wishes of local residents.
But it's unclear whether frack wells are actually to blame for Hall's bad water. As landowners with bad water like Hall around the nation try to build cases against the companies that drill the wells near them, they're struggling to prove the connection.
Meantime, they face an industry that's not forthcoming about what chemicals they're pumping underground. The drilling industry says it is reluctant to share information because of its proprietary value, but frack critics say the chemicals are kept secret because of how toxic they are.
Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company based in Oklahoma City which drilled three wells near Hall's property, denies responsibility for the contamination, and says that Hall first complained of bad water before the company began the fracking stage of its three wells.
"Protecting underground sources of water is a top priority and we take every concern very seriously," said Matt Sheppard, Chesapeake's senior director of corporate development in a written statement to Scripps on Nov. 2. "After careful analysis and investigation, we believe the data clearly shows we are not responsible for Mrs. Hall's water well quality."
State-commissioned testing concluded the contamination was from leaked gasoline -- not fracking fluids -- even though Hall said there are no gasoline tanks near her property. Gene Smith, regulatory compliance manager for the state's Department of Environmental Protection, investigated the contamination. He did not return a call to comment.
Each well near Hall's property was blasted with an average of 4.05 million gallons of frack fluid, according to Sheppard. He declined to say exactly what the chemicals were used during fracking, instead pointing to a general fact sheet that included some but not all details about the frack fluid ingredient list.
The longstanding battle to disclose exactly what's in fracking fluids intensified Nov. 9. That's when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it issued a subpoena to Halliburton, demanding that the Houston-based drilling services giant report the chemical composition of their frack fluids, according to the federal agency. On Nov. 15, Halliburton said it would provide more information about the ingredients.
Multiple rounds of testing were conducted from April 2009 to May of 2010 by Hall's neighbors and fellow frack-opponents, Marilyn and Robert Hunt, who had access to technical equipment through his employer, Bayer MaterialScience. Because the testing was not done under strict conditions, it's not admissible in court, they admit.
It showed that Hall's water worsened four months after the second well was fracked, in October 2009. Water samples showed dramatic increases in toxic chemicals including acrylonitrile, benzene, and styrene.
In Hall's water the concentration of acrylonitrile -- a chemical used widely in plastics -- had spiked to over 734 times above the federal Environmental Protection Agency limit for lakes and streams. The chemical is a human carcinogen, and in animal testing has caused brain cancer and paralysis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sheppard denied that Chesapeake uses acrylonitrile, or many of the other contaminants found in Hall's well.
Another round of water testing in May showed that the water quality had improved significantly, even though some contaminants were still above federal standards.
The fact that Hall's nearby well remained untarnished shows something crucial: The way that fluids move underground is usually a mystery, experts say.
Conrad Volz, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, has heard other complaints that drinking water near frack well sites was contaminated with acrylonitrile. But he has researched the chemical and has found no connection to fracking.
However, Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a fracking opponent, points out that drilling giant Halliburton lists acrylonitrile or a compound including it on two U.S. patents for frack additives.
Hall has suffered no health problems from the tainted well, since her drinking water comes from the shallower well, which has been unaffected. But she's suffered in other ways, she said.
"I've lost the value of my house. I've lost my water supply," Hall said. "I want my water back. I don't see why I should have to give up my livestock so they can pump."
Copyright 2010 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/lifestyle/green/at-ground-zero-for-fracking,-residents-say-water-has-gone-bad#ixzz1eiabmlCP

Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/lifestyle/green/at-ground-zero-for-fracking,-residents-say-water-has-gone-bad#ixzz1eiaIVRud

Thank you, Jim. Nice start. Contact info@eight-rivers.com and they can put you in touch with Highland Conservancy, Sierra Club and other organizations that have lobbied, organized, presented logical information to the legislature for years. They are outnumbered, out spent and out maneuvered in the backrooms by Big Money and Big Business year after year after year. They can use your help. Your concerns have been voiced since the beginning and snickered at by multinational, multimillion dollar organizations. How many phone calls, letters have you sent? How many times have you called Helmick, et al and told them personally your concerns? And what have they done? They and the state of WV have done nothing, absolutely nothing but sell us down the river with blithe platitudes and industry lies. Those few who try to do right from say, the DEP, are overwhelmed.

But don’t take my word for it. Educate yourself. I didn’t believe it at first either. You do not own your water. (Your well? Start getting it tested now for several hundred dollars and again every few months in case drilling starts next door. Because if it goes bad, the industry will say it was already bad. Unless you have the right test at the right time you can’t prove it was good.) Those who are afraid someone is telling them what to do with their land have already lost that battle, especially if they have leased. The county cannot regulate drilling and the state refuses to adequately do so. Entire regions of the United States are finally pushing back and putting a halt to Marcellus drilling. Do you wonder what they know that you don’t? Do you wonder why WV is one of the poorest states with the highest cancer rates? Why people, animals, livestock around drilling are getting terribly sick? With our resources we should be one of the richest and healthiest.

I could go on. But you can look, too. It means more if you look for yourself.

Thanks for being willing to listen.

The route to meaningful regulations seems to have hit a speed bump to say the least. Remember several months ago, the Commission sent everyone and their brother a list of suggested regulations to be considered in the special sessions etc. Well not one, no not one single legislator, governor, senator, department etc responded with so much as a thank you for your interest, yet alone, these seem like fairly decent ideas. Here is the truth of it all again paraphrasing Dr. Carr....The last hundred plus years has seen the greatest transformation of society in the history of the world as far as raising the standard of living for every person and "fueling" every industry and mechanism enabling each of us to do the "work (in the sense of physics)" of a hundred men or more. I read recently that 55 gallons of oil are approximately equal to 22,000 man hours of labor. So the juggernaut of society is going with momentum that will not countenance nay sayers and gives only lip service to regulations or anything which is seen as slowing down growth. Of course water is life or death but its depletion or ruin is seen as "not happening" or "can be fixed" or "damages" etc. I honestly believe that at the end of this gas frenzy, it will be old Pocahontas County sitting in the cat bird seat with pure water and unspoiled land....not from our enactments or resolutions, or from our personal choice even, but from geology alone.

I apologize if I misunderstand your current position on the topic. After reading this week's article in the Pocahontas Times, I came away with the feeling that you somehow, suddenly no longer perceive fracking as a reality or a threat to our community. I would rather have inferred that your stance had not changed but simply that this particluar resolution was a lost cause or not particularly productive. I can't help but feel that the most articulate, driven and informed player on the team just started pitching for the other team as we were about to take the field.

Mr. Spencer, I know drilling would a terrible threat to almost every natural asset and quiet country life style we have. I understand the visceral reaction to the massive industrial changes drilling bring to a community. I don't understand why so many who are fearful of drilling will not accept the good news that, by grace, it is unlikely to ever happen here. Go to http://ims.wvgs.wvnet.edu/WVOG/viewer.htm and you will see Pocahontas County is a gas orphan abandoned by fate to remain an outcast from the gas field. We are not on the fairway. We are barely on the course. We are mere spectators. Let us spend time being productive and fight real problems like addiction and poor education. Let us become powerful as a community invested in our assets and maximize them so that if ever new threats come we will be independent of the need to entertain bad choices.

Martin,
Your link is misleading. It represents old existing wells. Old gas and oil wells. That does not predict the future of new Marcellus shale drilling. Look at this link. http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/devshales.htm
This shows Marcellus shale in this county. It is the same density in Greenbrier where wells are permitted and Nicholas where they are already drilling. We are the same shade of gray as Webster county where they are successfully drilling. Northern Pocahontas has a darker shade of gray just like Randolph county which has active wells. You are sticking your head in the sand if you think it will not come here. Marcellus drilling is to the North, West, and South of us. You have turned your back on those who signed the petition hoping nothing will happen. What will you say when the first application is submitted? Oops, maybe we should do something now?

Martin,
I looked at your site. It shows existing wells and permits. It does not predict the future: Look at it hard. In the same strati as Pocahontas (all three shades) there are wells or permits. There are some in even the lightest shade of blue. Why would energy company s have leased here in the first place if there were not potential. To say by grace it will not come here is to close your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.
One of the reasons to bring the County Commission into action now is to do it before there are wells so that the gas industry has not already invested millions in drilling and be more likely to fight. Don't you remember those very words coming from your lips?
Dr. Carr admitted he was an energy biased man. He tried and succeeded in convincing you nothing needed to be done. You heard what you wanted to hear. Someone who has a vested interest in not having Pocahontas hinder the gas industry told you not to worry and do nothing and that is what you did. Nothing. 750 people told you to do something and you ignored them.
If an energy company has a choice between two equally likely sites to exploit, one that would require litigation and one that would not, what would be the logical choice? If Pocahontas is a poor candidate for gas exploitation what is the harm in making it more so. Doing nothing is inviting them in.

I agree with JIM.

Whatever you do, do not stop the clock on the leases just so that you can have a feel-good moment. For those of us who have leased our lands, our only release from the lease is the passage of time. Whether you like it or not, your only release from the leases all around you is education and the passage of time. Stop the Clock, and you waste your efforts at education and emperil what you have worked for.

There are only so many drilling rigs, and they are busy. They are not going to be sent to a county where there is no infrastructure or pipelines for transportation and whose vehicular transportation routes are still improved buffalo wanderings. The rigs are going to used in the near future in areas where the return on investment is the greatest. You surely cannot believe that it is us. If you do believe that, tell me when you are going to present that knowledge, and I'll come to the meeting to hear you present.

I am not arguing at this time that my decision 3 1/2 years ago was a good one, given the risks I know about today. But I do know that I made that decison, in part because I was aware that people had paid rents for a long time on Cheat Mountain land and nothing every came of it. I was aware from a geologist's report that we were in a fringe zone, and I was aware that there was no transportation for even known wells. Based on that, I continued a practice that had been in effect for the last thirty - fifty or so years. Time will tell. What I believe is that whatever the reason, I am stuck with that decision. The element that frees up that decision is the passage of time.

In the interim, whatever you do, don't do something that will stop the clock. You will simply make the terms of the leases forever. Let time, the law, and education be on your side. "Time and Tide wait for no man." Not even Chesapeake.

I believe that the best strategy is education, building community cohesion, and keeping our heads low. Going in now with guns blazing is simply going to draw attention to ourselves and make the industry wonder if we know something that they don't.

Jim, I understand about wanting the ‘facts’. Those are easy as basically, both ‘sides’ agree on many of them. The gas industry will tell you itself that the well pad is about six acres; each well pad has between six and eight wells and that each well requires an average of five million gallons of water. The most recent statistics I have read from the industry itself brags about ‘only’ a 2% to 5% failure rate at its drilling sites. (That’s their statistics; we might disagree but let’s take what they say as ‘truth for now.) They tell you that a well fracks 24/7 for several months. The law says it can come within 200 feet of a dwelling. Well pads are not singular, but develop in ‘drilling fields’ because that is economically feasible as infrastructure such as pipelines and compressor stations are needed.

Those are facts we all agree on. What you are struggling with, I would guess, is the cost/benefit ratio or the risk/benefit ratio. That’s where we disagree.

The cost of turning Pocahontas County into an industrial site is too high for me. I think that short term gain, a boom, would be quickly followed by bust as tourism, for example, a $159 million revenue stream for our county based on one million visitors a year would fail. Who wants to ski around gas rigs? Hunt around hissing pumping stations? Stay at a B&B with a beautiful view of . . .a gas field? Fish in streams with who knows what in them and no fish?

The water is removed forever. No one entity uses more than a million gallons a year in Pocahontas County. You know that people are already hauling water in the summer just to get by. Almost all water that is used here returns to the water cycle—watering the golf course, the towns’ water. Fracking water is chemically treated. Whatever doesn’t stay underground (and go who-knows-where) is poisoned and cannot be returned to the water cycle. Where is that fracking water going to come from?

That is just the business side of it. For me there is also the quality of life and the legacy I want to leave my children. I am a small business person. Momentarily, I would make more money; it is not worth it.

Secondly, there is the risk. I sure hope that one in twenty wells blows up in your backyard and not mine. Would you fly an airline with that record? If it is far away from me, then it is ok. Right? If a few people die and I don’t know them, that’s ok. If the volunteer firemen are called out to fight well fires, for which they have no training, and have to stay on site for weeks while they figure out what to do, that’s ok as long as it is in your back yard, not mine. It even might be ok if it only ruined your well. But our water here is so interconnected that a spill a mile from my home might six months later show up in my well and I wouldn’t know until my dog died. Methane leaks—as long as the one in twenty happens to you and not to me, it is fine. Right? That is what risk means. Unfortunately, if people lease they are not risking just themselves, they are forcing people who don’t choose to do so, to take the same risks anyway.

I simply don’t want to live that way for the promise of a few dollars for somebody else. My life, my health, my family is much more important.

I understood the issue of zoning is not whether or not you could control drilling, but could you effect zoning if it was against the political will of the people to support zoning in the first place.

If the county population was adamantly opposed to zoning - then to enact it would be a foolish waste of money and effort because at the next election the population would do what is required to eliminate it. In a representative government, we theoretically select our "representatives" to represent the will of the people. Certainly, I would not vote for an "unabashed tree hugger" unless I thought he had the common sense to let go if he was someone else's land and the owner wished to sell the timber, or if it was established that his tree had a blight or infestation that could harm other trees even if it was on his own personal property. I would expect him to do what is best. Maybe that means spending $1000.00 spraying to save his tree, maybe that means cutting it down and burning it. I would not expect him to hug it in the fire to prove he was a tree hugger. A simple tear would do.

I think it is wise to keep the education efforts going; I think it is wise to refine whatever instruments of protection proponents may feel is the best way to approach the issues; I think it is wise to keep it in the public forum; and I think it is wise not to make us a target when we don't need to be.

What happened to the concept of an Ordinance protecting the water in Pocahontas County? I thought its legality was verified and that the County Commissioners were prepared to act on it as elected guardians of public health. The people spoke and supported when they cast their votes for Commissioners.

Regulating and forbidding are integral to zoning ;large tracts or small tracts of land which can be used for certain activity or inactivity is also forbidding their uses for other functions.If only the state can regulate or forbid, then , why have they not banned shale drilling in Pocahontas Paradise? A segue. Where does the National Forest fit into this conundrum? Who speaks for it? I would say that it is already zoned , regulated, with certain activities allowed and some forbidden. People cannot use their cell phones within ten miles of the astronomy center. Thus they live with the concept and reality of zoning for which they did not vote. It is a bit humorous to see the citizens get so riled up over the very word,zoning.Logic cannot compete with emotion,though, where property is concerned.

David, I have puzzled over your responses for a couple of days. I am not clear. Here is my guess: you have a lease. The lease expires. There is a clause in the lease that says if ‘something’ happens to make the lease unable to be acted upon (read that to be something as wishy-washy as a County Commission statement that they don’t think horizontal drilling is nice) those leases can be extended ad infinitum? You want to chance that there will be no well action before your lease expires so that you can opt to not renew? Have you gone over this, if I am right in reading between the lines, with a contract lawyer

To Egad: Yes all of the above except the wishy washy part.

I am part of the group that continued in the footsteps of those who gone before. Seemed like a no-brainer at the time - perhaps it really was. Did consult with all of the aforementioned professionals icluding a geologist who actually visited the site, as well as a few others. Foolishly, I assumed that my government would be vigilant in regulating industries that endangered its citizenry. That was before I noticed the memorial to the coal miners who sacrificed their lives to provide inexpensive electricity for America on the grounds of the state capitol building. Then it began to dawn on me what our government really thinks of its citizenry and the purpose of having citizenry in the first place - the most noble thing you can do is to lay down your life for cheap energy - aka - massive corporate profits. I guess building a monument is a way of absolving oneself of the responsibility as a legislator by honoring those "who sacrificed their lives" by their choice, as opposed to honoring those "whose lives were sacrificed" in the name of cheap coal and corporate profit and all of the wonderful things that happen to legislators that go along these corporate interests. Sorry for the slow uptake.

Just one note: My surface water flows out of the county before it leaves my land and never returns, not to say that poisoning the folks in Randolph is any better or that some of it doesn't get down into the ground and go somewhere else.

All of that said: To me - the best thing is to look carefully at the options available to us, and work to forge a conscensus on a workable solution to utilize while moving forward. Leases are a reality, but they are time limited. The safest thing that could happen as a county is to have regulations in place that protect our water quality. Unfortunately, it looks like that is more of a state option than a local option.

Zoning is a tough issue - and it is a sword that can cut in many directions - most notably to inflame the citizenry to throw out all of the good in the name of preserving individual freedoms. If you do that, you can lose the ability to have a sensible discussion in the first place which is very much needed if we are to develop a concesus we can live with.

My point here is that there are two realities readily apparent: One is that is a lot of land in Pocahontas that has been leased. The second is that those leases will expire. Given those two realities, what do you really want? Then decide what is the best way to get there that gives you the community in which you want to live.

You are right, freeholder, about one thing. There is a gas storage facility in northern Pocahontas, pipelines and all. It is filled, stockpiled during the off season and used up, drawn from beginning about now by large metropolitan areas, mostly DC, I understand, during the winter. It has nothing to do with drilling. It is like a warehouse. As to your question, the old verticle way of drilling is much safer and we have little objection to that. If that was what industry wanted to use, we would not be having this discussion. As to royalties, etc., I'll let someone else bust that balloon for you. The Greenbrier River? We have been working on it for years to clean it up. It is better; not finished, but better. For all of the sewage treatment we do, what we return to the river still pollutes it, but less. Imagine what drilling would do. Ihe immensity of drilling, the scope of the accidents, the removal of water, the toxicity of the poisons--it takes very little to poison a huge wateshed, a river for miles; it takes very little disturbance to cause a bloom that will kill off fish and then us. The balance of nature is fragile and takes no prisoners and tolerates no wait and see. And you are right--shale, gas, water doesn't pay attention to political boundaries. But we can use them, poor barriers that they are, to try to help at least one place in this state keep its clean water.