What the frack is going on in St. Tammany? Our Situation.

This all began about April 8th, when the news first broke of proposed drilling in St. Tammany Parish.

Helis's Proposal- Helis Oil & Gas Company has voiced its intention to drill for natural gas using hydraulic fracturing processes at a site near where Interstate 12 and Hwy 1088 meet in Mandeville, La. This property is currently zoned as residential. In response to initial opposition from the residents of the parish, Helis released this statement to a local news station (WWL-TV). 

Here are photos and maps of the area currently (pre-drilled). 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 
 

The Parish Government response- At first the parish seemed to be hesitating on acting on their zoning laws or even taking a stance; they said we "just don't have a choice." (Hear the Parish President in her own words) 

This response was met with scoff, and rebuttal. And eventually campaign finances were brought to light. Between the landowner and the oil company, many of the lawmakers who were assuring us of the safety of this process and the impossibly of stopping the drills, were the ones indebted to those who would profit most directly from fracking this property. 

You said you wanted info on Helis, so I though I'd begin with who they've been giving money too, because that is always a good way to judge character. Helis has donated $108,500 to the campaigns of 15 individuals in this state, most of whom now hold office. These are the only documented donations by Helis to any campaigns in the Louisiana Purchased Campaign Contribution Database. The Lieutenant Governor, John L. (Jay) Dardenne, has received the most from Helis Oil & Gas, totally $25,000 in two years. Stacy Head, the President of the New Orleans City Council, is also a favored darling of Helis, receiving $15,000 in 2012. John Kennedy, the Louisiana State Treasurer, received $7,500 between 2010-2011 to aid with his unopposed 4th term re-election as Treasurer of our state. Mitch Landrieu, Mayor of New Orleans, received $15,000 from Helis between 2010 and 2011. Billy Nungesser, the ever-so-lively Plaquemines Parish President, received $10,000 between 2011-2012. Those were the big hitters, who received multiple donations. A handful of other political figures received only a one time $5,000 donation, including our Governor Bobby Jindal, Senator Edwin R Murray, Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Scott A Angelle, Chairman of the (La.) House Education Committee Austin J. Badon, and former Board of Reagents member John D. Georges. Only four donations were made below the $5,000 mark. The Speaker Pro Tempore of the Louisiana House of Representatives, Walter J Leger III, received $2,500. Senator John Paul Morell of the 3rd District also received $2,500. State Board of Education memeber, Kira Orange Jones, also received $2,500. Robert Gravolet received $2,500 when he ran for Assessor of Plaquemines Parish. Jacquelyn Clarkson, the former President of the New Orleans City Council and State Representative from District 102, received the smallest donation, of only $1,000. These are ALL of the campaign contributions given under the Helis Oil & Gas name according to the Louisiana Purchased Campaign Contribution Database. (I think it's pretty insightful.)

Further, the landowner in the fracking dispute, Edward Poitevent and his law firm in New Orleans have contributed to all but 4 of the above mentioned campaigns, though they make many donations. His firm donated $21,500 to Dardenne's campaign, $15,000 to Landrieu's campaign, $7,000 to Nungesser's campaign, $5,000 to Angelle's campaign, $5,000 to Badon's campaign, $2,750 to Jindal's campaign, $3,000 to Morell's campaign, $2,500 to Kennedy's campaign, $2,500 to Murray's campaign, $1,500 to Clarkson's campaign, and $750 to Leger's campaign. That's on top of the $5,000 Poitevent and his wife paid to our Parish President, Pat Brister, the $2,000 this law firm payed Donahue, and $500 that went to Falconer. All in all the 11 politicians who benefited from the donations of Helis along with the aforementioned St. Tammany Parish officials received a total of $74,000 from the landlord or associated parties. 

What do they want, and what do they get for their money?

And then 3 of the 14 council members (Brister, Donahue, and Falconer) acted without the knowledge or consent of the others to come to a "compromise" with Helis on the subject. But the "compromise" was a laughable joke. It consisted entirely of routine preparatory activity that would have occurred regardless of any pretend intervention by the parish government, specifically- initially drilling a vertical well then doing exploratory testing to see if there's anything actually worth drilling for further. Drilling's a gamble, and they don't always know exactly what's down there till they get there. This is pretty evident in the recent announcement that the predicted amounts of recoverable shale oil from the Monterey formation in California is expected to be officially slashed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration by 96%. This new accounting means that nearly 2/3 of the shale oil reserves in the entire country, don't actually exist. So what I'm saying is that any good oil company would do these "exploratory" tests before spending the money on expensive hydraulic fracturing operations on shale that may not contain anything worth recovering. Further, these routine operations were mentioned twice, as matter of course, in the month leading up to the big "compromise." As early as April 8th, in the earliest days of this fight, these "exploratory" wells were mentioned in news articles. A couple of weeks later it was reported that "The company plans to drill about 13,400 feet deep into a large shale formation, at which time the vertical hole will be evaluated to determine if the well appears to have commercial potential. If not it would be properly plugged and abandoned, [the President of Helis] said." (This was about two weeks before the "compromise".)

But last week the parish formally notified the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that it opposed the drilling on these residential properties. The Parish Council has also started drafting ordinances pertaining to protecting the environment and health of the people when the drilling starts.

State Government response- First the Army Corps of Engineers weighed in, releasing a statement: "The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of probable impact, including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will refect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources." Issues that will be considered will include "conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people." The statement went on to detail that the area has no known historical or archaeological sites, as well as no known endangered species. Further, it notes that the La. Department of Environmental Quality will be responsible for ascertaining that no applicable water quality standards are being violated, and permitting the project as such.

In a response to an email I sent to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality regarding fracking regulation in St. Tammany Parish and their pending permit, they replied: "The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality does not have regulatory jurisdiction over this type of operation. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources has sole jurisdiction over drilling. The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources have joint jurisdiction over the aquifer issues. LDEQ has some input in the form of a Water Quality Certification that will be required if a US Army Corp of Engineers wetland permit needs to be obtained. LDEQ has limited jurisdiction over surface water quality issues, specifically storm water, if regulated materials are spilled on site during drilling and/or operation."

So essentially, it all comes down to the Department of Natural Resources. The hearing was originally scheduled for March 15th with notice and application posted. But in part due to the "compromise," the hearing was postponed. Notes associated with the original hearing date on the DNR website say that the new hearing date is 6/17/14, but the "Lacombe Bayou" (St. Tammany) site doesn't appear to be listed on the docket for that day (the 17th) or any day in the future. (I don't know if this means the hearing is on or off... several of the citizen groups have been told about this matter, but there has been no response.) Here's thing, when parish officials made the "compromise" it stated that the project would be delayed for a "couple of months," but no specific time frame was given. So it's possible this affected the scheduling for our hearing. (I repeat- I do not know if the hearing is cancelled or scheduled for the 17th. We need confirmation from DNR.)

UPDATE [6-16-14]: The DNR finally updated their hearing site (I guess) in the last 48 hours, because the Lacombe Bayou Field has appeared on the docket for tomorrow (the 17th). The hearing is on, anyone who can attend please do.

Anti-Fracker response- Well first there were crowds of angry protesters with signs, some of who were escorted from the Parish council meeting. Then came the "compromise" and with it recall petitions for all members of the council. (Even Councilman Groby who has always stood against this proposal. He was the first to address the zoning issues. And he was the council member who introduced the proposal to hire independent council to represent the interests of the parish in this issue. Although the independent legal council that has yet to be hired and the deadline for is just days away.) Then, all of a sudden, the council completely changed course, and announced their opposition to the issue based on the zoning issues (echoing Groby's words from weeks before). But within a day or two of the Parish Council turn-around, anti-frackers noticed a large residential plot in the northern part of the parish, which was (it seemed) suddenly being rezoned from residential to industrial and they suspected a con (item #7 set for the June 3rd meeting). The hearing on this change occurs within the week and citizens are demanding a halt to any rezoning from "residential" to "industrial" until the fracking issue is decided.

   

Other citizens are pushing for use of the "Home Rule Charter." The charter outlines the structure and powers of our local Parish government, outlining the powers and expectations of the President and Council members. In Article VI Section 6-01, the charter states: "The electors of the St. Tammany Parish Government shall have the power except as herein restricted, to propose to the council passage, amendment or repeal of ordinances and to vote on the question if the council refuses action. This power shall not extend to the proposing or repealing of ordinances making or reducing the appropriation of money, to the repeal or reduction of any taxes, or to changing the salaries of the government's officers or employees." Essentially, a petition containing the full text of the proposed ordinance must be submitted to the Parish Council, which will have 30 days to respond. Within 60 days of the petitions response (if the Council opposes the ordinance), the signatures of 10% of the registered voters in the Parish must be obtained for a Parish-wide ordinance to be given a public hearing. If the ordinance were to impact only a smaller area, 20% of the registered voters in that area would need to sign the petition. Once signatures are submitted and authenticated, the Council must either adopt the ordinance or allow it to go to a public vote. The vote must be held in the next scheduled election or a special election held within 30 days. If the ordinance passes, the President can not veto the ordinance, and the Council will not be allowed to alter the ordinance for a period of one year, although it can be altered or repealed by the voters during that period.

This is a very promising proposition.

But there's a catch. Louisiana is the nation's second largest consumer of energy per person. We consume nearly 3 times the national average. Very little of our energy comes from renewable resources. Barely 1.5% of Louisiana's energy is produced  from renewable sources. Only four other states, New Mexico, West Virginia, Alaska, and Wyoming, produce less renewable energy. So where does our energy come from? Mostly from natural gas.

Nearly three-quarters of our energy is consumed by the industrial and commercial sectors. Transportation consumes more energy than all the residential properties in the state combined. 

Most of the electricity powering our homes and businesses comes from natural gas as well. 

So this state essentially runs on natural gas. It's part of our day to day lives. For this reason, larger issues must be included when addressing the fracking issue.

"The main elements of the Louisiana economy are: the production of minerals, particularly oil and natural gas, but also sulphur, lime, salt, and lignite; petroleum refining; chemical and petrochemical manufacturing, tourism, forestry, pulp, plywood and papermaking, agriculture and food processing; commercial fishing; shipping and international trade; shipbuilding and general manufacturing." A lot of our "industry" is either the production of natural gas or heavily reliant upon natural gas. Louisiana produces one-quarter of the nation's natural gas, on top of holding 10% of the nation's oil reserves and being the nation's third biggest oil producer. Louisiana is also the third largest refiner of gasoline, and other petroleum products. Our state, where synthetic rubber was first created, has over 100 major chemical plants producing petrochemicals for use in fertilizers, feedstocks, and plastics, making us the second largest producer of "primary petrochemicals" in the country.   

So this isn't just a matter of turning off the lights when you leave the room (though you should definitely still do that). This problem necessitates a paradigm shift, a change in our basic intent and motivations when it comes to the future of energy. Meaning, this is going to take some times and many profound changes. 

You see, there's a shale run on, throughout America and the world. And right now the U.S. is trying to shore up its political capital by using natural gas to undermine the influence of Vladimir Putin and Russia on the Ukraine and Europe, all major importers of Russian natural gas.

"Although Russia is still the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas, the United States recently surpassed it to become the world’s largest natural gas producer, largely because of breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing technology, known as fracking..." The New York Times reported recently. Although not yet an exporter, America has only managed to become this major producer because of fracking technology. (Currently, we mostly consume all of what we produce in America.) As recently as 2007, our natural gas reserves were considered to be dwindling, and the President at the time was considering importing natural gas from Russia too. But the "Shale Gas Revolution" had begun.

When you hear the term "U.S. natural gas exports" you should immediately think of fracking. Without hydraulic fracturing, the U.S. wouldn't be able to produce enough natural gas to even consider exporting it to European and other countries. The President, Congress, and industry are all on board, and enthusiastic about the move. "At the helm of the new energy diplomacy effort is Carlos Pascual, a former American ambassador to Ukraine, who leads the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources. The 85-person bureau was created in late 2011 by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state at the time, for the purpose of channeling the domestic energy boom into a geopolitical tool to advance American interests around the world." Multiple facilities are being built around the country to handle exportation of liquid natural gas product. The question is no longer if but when, with Republicans pressuring the President to expedite the process, despite the fact most of the export terminals won't be completely constructed until 2017. Along with the products of hydraulic fracturing technologies, the processes are also being exported. The Bureau of Energy Resources is working with countries, like the Ukraine, that are dependent on Russian oil to develop their own "unconventional" oil and gas resources. In short, we're exporting fracking as well. Which means the negative impacts of this technology are a threat to us all. 

So this is a very big, very complex problem. This isn't just a conspiracy by "Big Oil" to get rich while poisoning us all for the love of money. This is the adopted American energy policy and that's a lot harder to change. But our current ways of dealing with "the energy crisis" are not unchangeable. A new way is possible, but only if we address our 'big picture' problems.

***My rendition of the local "response" is entirely based on what I know about, there are may parties involved and I am not privy to everything by any means. I intend no offense by anything I portray in this post, either by omission or misinterpretation. I only intend to document events as I see them and centralize sources of information into one location.