Friday, May 15, 2009
Hogan endorses Zim Zimmerman
Yesterday several key Hogan supporters and Gary met with Zim Zimmerman at Zim's headquarters on Camp Bowie Blvd. We asked for the meeting for the purpose of briefing Zim on our concerns for the City and District 3. The meeting lasted about two hours. At the conclusion of the meeting Gary endorsed Zim for City Council.
Coming soon to a street near you.
This is what will be happening in Fort Worth when there are 3000-5000 gas wells and 200-500 miles of gas gathering pipeline network in the city. This will be the legacy of Mike Moncrief and Carter Burdette, both of whom knew or should have known that this danger would be visited upon the citizens. Look at the size of this fire that began as an explosion. Chesapeake and XTO plan to put pipelines like this within 10 feet of the foundations of homes. Even if buried 20 ft deep, as they have claimed they would do, there would be no safety from this kind of holocaust, because such explosions routinely blast craters. One such crater in Palo Pinto County in recent years was reported to be the size of a football field.
This danger is the reason why there has been so much outside money dumped on Eric Fox's campaign. Moncrief does not want any independent thought on the City Council.
Election reflections--Star-Telegram 5-15-09
I want to express my deepest thanks to my supporters and friends for their vote of confidence. It is a humbling experience to run for public office and have others believe in you, your vision, passion and desire to serve your city and community.
I also want to commend them for being among the 6.39 percent of Fort Worth residents who took the time to exercise their right to vote and have a voice in their government. It is a sad commentary on our society that this most precious right is ignored and dismissed by the remaining 93.61 percent.
I want to thank the people I met at the forums and as I took my campaign door-to-door in the neighborhoods of District 3. I had the opportunity to share my vision but, more importantly, to hear your concerns and ideas. I think I speak for all of the candidates in this race when I say hearing from you is what drove our spirit to the next door and the next person we hoped to represent and serve.
I am proud of the campaign we ran. All the candidates in District 3, although different in many ways in their basic ideology, remained respectful. I may have lost this race but I am so honored and proud of the 403 who believed in me with their votes.
— Gary Hogan, Fort Worth
I also want to commend them for being among the 6.39 percent of Fort Worth residents who took the time to exercise their right to vote and have a voice in their government. It is a sad commentary on our society that this most precious right is ignored and dismissed by the remaining 93.61 percent.
I want to thank the people I met at the forums and as I took my campaign door-to-door in the neighborhoods of District 3. I had the opportunity to share my vision but, more importantly, to hear your concerns and ideas. I think I speak for all of the candidates in this race when I say hearing from you is what drove our spirit to the next door and the next person we hoped to represent and serve.
I am proud of the campaign we ran. All the candidates in District 3, although different in many ways in their basic ideology, remained respectful. I may have lost this race but I am so honored and proud of the 403 who believed in me with their votes.
— Gary Hogan, Fort Worth
Sunday, May 3, 2009
What this election is really about
Folks, this election is the most important Fort Worth City Council election in decades—maybe ever. The result of the District 3 election on May 9 may very well spell the difference between life and death for this city. This is not a shrill Chicken Little comment. It is a judgment that is sober, based on a calm evaluation of the technical implications of the collaboration between the gas drilling industry and the political axis of evil that has been in control of the affairs of Fort Worth since 2003.
You wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric of candidates and the coverage of issues by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. These indicators are heavily influenced by big money and are very well controlled.
The list of questions posed to the candidates for election to Chuck Silcox’s former District 3 Council seat at the poorly attended forum at Trinity Valley School on April 29 show how far off the mark public perception of what is going on here really is. Here are the questions:
· For several years, the Fort Worth City Council has been pursuing a policy of increased density for the central city: more vertical apartments and condominiums and more commercial development near downtown and nearer traditionally single family central city neighborhoods. What policies and programs would you work to establish to ensure that single-family neighborhoods are not further encroached upon and that the quality of life in these neighborhoods improves?
· The Trinity River Vision project plans show that the project depends on a tremendous amount of high-end downtown housing development. Tax dollars will be used to develop the land for this use.
· Do you support the Trinity River Vision?
· Should Fort Worth develop this housing given the fact that not all current downtown housing is occupied?
· How do TRV and the expenditures on it affect Fort Worth’s neighborhoods?
· What groups besides realtors, developers, and title companies benefit financially from TRV?
· Do you support the use of eminent domain for economic development projects?
· Neighborhood planning is an integral part of a City’s sustainability. What can you do to ensure that neighborhood planning becomes a big part of what City Hall does with and for neighborhoods?
· What should the City do to support and revitalize the large amount of affordable housing that already exists in central city neighborhoods?
· What is your philosophy on zoning?
· Should neighborhood interests trump commercial development or institutional interests?
· Or should commercial development or institutional interests trump neighborhood interests?
· At City Hall, citizens hear elected officials repeatedly say, (on whatever the issue; gas drilling, zoning, economic development, etc.) “We are working to balance the interests of the neighborhoods with other kinds of development.”
· Do you believe that there must always be a “balance” struck in all situations or are there times when the appropriate action is to tip the scale to ensure that the citizen (taxpayer) and neighborhood interest comes out on top?
· Gas drilling experts have said that we will not know the environmental impact of gas drilling in Fort Worth for many years to come i.e.; emissions into the air, potential pipeline leaks under parks, near homes, under the Trinity River, etc.
· What should the City do to revise its ordinance and gas drilling practices so that the impact of gas drilling on citizens and the environment is as negligible as possible?
· Would you support working with the Texas Legislature to craft legislation which would end the ability of pipeline companies to use the power of eminent domain to lay gas transmission pipelines on urban residential property in Fort Worth?
· How should state legislation regulating urban drilling be revised to benefit the citizens of Fort Worth?
These questions were assembled by a committee from, I believe, three neighborhood associations who sponsored this forum. The first thing to notice is that no mention is made of the dictatorial, iron-fisted control of the Council by Mayor Moncrief and his “Fort Worth Way” abridgment of free speech at Council hearings. The second thing to notice is that the questions give the impression that there is only philosophical concern about gas drilling and production policy. No crisis is perceived. Thirdly, the questions give the impression that the usual issues facing cities are as important in this election as gas drilling and production policy. Ho hum.
The fact that Moncrief has stuffed the last two gas drilling task forces with gas drillers doesn’t get any attention. The enormous amount of money spent by the gas industry to purchase good will and influence here is not of concern. In short, the gas drilling issues have been diluted with a generous dollop of the usual fare and homogenized so that no special concern is apparent.
The questions have obvious desired answers. And, of course, all candidates were anxious to please. They all sounded the same. The worst thing about it all is that as the candidates have worked through the many candidate forums leading up to this one they have helped to create a sense that everything is normal in Fort Worth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
District 3 voters are filling the seat of the late Chuck Silcox, a man of the people, who for 17 years was their watchdog against profligate spending and neglect of basic city services by the City Council under the guidance of the downtown boomer crowd and various commercial and corporate interests. Even when Chuck was a lone voice in opposition to tax giveaways, a city owned hotel, and other raids on the city treasury he prevented many such ripoffs from being conducted in the back room. He was a thorn in the side of the drilling industry that they desperately want to see gone until all their plans have been executed. Two more years will do the trick for them. That is why Chesapeake and XTO are watching this race like hawks. And that is why there are seven candidates for the District 3 seat.
The only candidate who will prevent the drillers from gaining complete control of the fate of this city is Gary Hogan. The presence of two Lockheed Martin present or past executives, a retired Air Force general, two obvious wannabe professional politicians, and a landman in this race pitted against the only candidate with a record of public service in the fight against the plans of the drilling industry has made it possible to control the dialogue of the campaign so that the gas drilling issue appears to be no more critical than chuckholes in city streets. The plan is an application of the principle stated in the following pithy quote from Thomas Pynchon:
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.”
So…what is at stake in this election? Take a drive out State Highway 377 toward Granbury. Notice how many eighteen wheeler gas well service tank trucks there are on the highway. At Cresson and Granbury notice the recent appearance of parking lots for these trucks and the storage yards for gas well drilling equipment. Notice how much of the landscape is covered with drilling pads and gas well infrastructure. Each drilling pad is visited daily by one of the large tank trucks to empty the polluted water storage tanks that stand on each pad.
The drilling pads are nodes in a network of gas gathering pipelines that carry the raw wet corrosive gas from the wells at a pressure of about 200 pounds per square inch to processing plants where the water and impurities are removed and the dry natural gas is compressed to 1200 pounds per square inch for injection into larger transmission pipelines that carry the gas far away to East Coast markets.
Now think of this network and service activity superimposed on Fort Worth. That is what is coming to town in the next few years if the drillers have their way. Every page of the MAPSCO book of Fort Worth will have several drilling pads. The gas gathering line network inside the city will contain several hundred miles of gathering pipe. It will be necessary to impose eminent domain on residential property to construct this pipeline network. The number of homes that will fall victim to this confiscation of pipeline right of way is many hundreds, perhaps as many as a few thousand.
Moncrief’s job is to minimize the public awareness of these activities, and that is what he’s been doing since he was recruited to run for Mayor by the industry in 2002. Until 2008 pipelines were never mentioned to the public or to City Council members. Then we saw the first appearance of the use of eminent domain on Carter Avenue on the east side and in Westcliff on the south side of town. Suddenly everybody became aware of pipelines and eminent domain. Surprise! Moncrief and Burdette knew this would be coming all along, as did Chesapeake and XTO, but nobody said a word.
Why didn’t Moncrief and Carter Burdette raise concern about what they knew was coming to town? They knew. Due diligence was not performed. Hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil. That was the tactic used by the unholy alliance of drillers and city government in Fort Worth.
There are now more than 1000 gas wells inside the city, with 4000 to 6000 more needed to fully produce the gas underneath the city with current drilling technology. There is still time to manage the situation in a responsible way, but in two years it will be too late.
The statistics of gas pipeline disasters are available and have been presented to Moncrief and his minions. They have simply ignored the warning. They haven’t even been concerned enough to commission an independent investigation by a disinterested qualified statistical mathematician. Instead, all we have seen is a chanting of the mantra of the dominance of mineral rights over surface rights, an untested legal question.
Whenever there is an incident, such as the one in Forest Hill in 2006, the discussion is carefully focused on regulation as the answer. This approach ignores the fact that the disaster statistics are for a nationwide system that is fully regulated in the way in which Fort Worth’s system will be regulated. The focus on regulation is a canard to permit continued unfettered gas well drilling. The question should be, “Does profit really legally trump safety in these matters?” The unholy alliance does not want a definitive answer to this question, so they wave their hands and point to regulation as the solution. That is not due diligence; it is criminal negligence.
If Gary Hogan does not win the District 3 seat and if Moncrief wins reelection, the rest of the plan will become our reality and our albatross for at least the next thirty years.
So…what will that reality look like? What do the statistics say will happen here when the drillers are finished? The math says that the rate of accidents increases as the number of wells and miles of pipeline increase. In a gas field of 3000 wells developed with current technology the statistics show that there will be, on average, two disasters per year. Now, that won’t happen in every 12 month period over the life of the wells. One percent of the time there will be 28 months or more between successive disasters. There may be 5000 to 7000 wells inside Fort Worth if the city gas resources are fully developed. The rate of disasters would obviously increase.
So what would this mean to us who live here? As time goes by the damages caused by these unavoidable events will attract the attention of the insurance industry. Recalling what happened with the black mold scare, we can reasonably expect steep mandatory home insurance premium increases. Mortgage companies will require homeowners within some distance of a gathering pipeline to buy this insurance. The few who own their homes will be required to purchase the insurance or sign a waiver that will exclude coverage for these disasters.
The continuing sequence of disasters will cause an exodus from the city for economic, safety, and health reasons, similar to the history of Detroit and Newark, NJ. Property values and tax revenues will plummet. City services will decay. At some point Wall Street will take notice and degrade bonds for all taxing authorities in the county.
All of this has been brought to the attention of Moncrief and his minions and has been greeted with dead silence.
And though I have given a presentation on all of this to somewhere between 2000 and 2500 Fort Worth voters, the District 3 candidate forums proceed as if there was no crisis.
What kind of disasters are we talking about? The database from which the statistics are computed contains data on “significant incidents”, defined as pipeline failures that cause fire, explosion, mass evacuation, human injury or death, or at least $50,000 in property damage. The data are compiled by the US Department of Transportation. Each state has a designated agency that is responsible for collecting the data. In Texas that agency is the Texas Railroad Commission. Reporting is mandatory by law. The data I used are incidents that occurred in the Barnett Shale in gas gathering lines from 2004 through 2007.
The data do not permit estimation of the damage radius as a function of variables that affect the amount of energy liberated in an incident. But we can get a very good sense of this by looking at some of the reports and published photos. The explosion in Forest Hill in 2006 involved one fatality and the forced evacuation of 500 homes. One in Hood County shattered windows 800 feet away. Total immolation of combustible material within 100 yards is typical. A few pictures may serve to provide a qualitative sense of what these incidents involve.
One explosion in Palo Pinto County, Texas in 2005 created a 750 foot wide crater. The incident happened at night, and the flash was seen 100 miles away.
After seeing this information, under what conditions do you think it is safe and responsible to permit the siting of a 16 inch diameter raw gas pipeline carrying gas at 200 pounds per square inch at a distance of 30 feet from a home? That is what current Fort Worth policy would permit. Remember, we are talking hundreds of miles of this kind of pipeline inside the Fort Worth city limits.
The survival of Fort Worth as a viable, livable, vibrant city is what this election is really about.
You wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric of candidates and the coverage of issues by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. These indicators are heavily influenced by big money and are very well controlled.
The list of questions posed to the candidates for election to Chuck Silcox’s former District 3 Council seat at the poorly attended forum at Trinity Valley School on April 29 show how far off the mark public perception of what is going on here really is. Here are the questions:
· For several years, the Fort Worth City Council has been pursuing a policy of increased density for the central city: more vertical apartments and condominiums and more commercial development near downtown and nearer traditionally single family central city neighborhoods. What policies and programs would you work to establish to ensure that single-family neighborhoods are not further encroached upon and that the quality of life in these neighborhoods improves?
· The Trinity River Vision project plans show that the project depends on a tremendous amount of high-end downtown housing development. Tax dollars will be used to develop the land for this use.
· Do you support the Trinity River Vision?
· Should Fort Worth develop this housing given the fact that not all current downtown housing is occupied?
· How do TRV and the expenditures on it affect Fort Worth’s neighborhoods?
· What groups besides realtors, developers, and title companies benefit financially from TRV?
· Do you support the use of eminent domain for economic development projects?
· Neighborhood planning is an integral part of a City’s sustainability. What can you do to ensure that neighborhood planning becomes a big part of what City Hall does with and for neighborhoods?
· What should the City do to support and revitalize the large amount of affordable housing that already exists in central city neighborhoods?
· What is your philosophy on zoning?
· Should neighborhood interests trump commercial development or institutional interests?
· Or should commercial development or institutional interests trump neighborhood interests?
· At City Hall, citizens hear elected officials repeatedly say, (on whatever the issue; gas drilling, zoning, economic development, etc.) “We are working to balance the interests of the neighborhoods with other kinds of development.”
· Do you believe that there must always be a “balance” struck in all situations or are there times when the appropriate action is to tip the scale to ensure that the citizen (taxpayer) and neighborhood interest comes out on top?
· Gas drilling experts have said that we will not know the environmental impact of gas drilling in Fort Worth for many years to come i.e.; emissions into the air, potential pipeline leaks under parks, near homes, under the Trinity River, etc.
· What should the City do to revise its ordinance and gas drilling practices so that the impact of gas drilling on citizens and the environment is as negligible as possible?
· Would you support working with the Texas Legislature to craft legislation which would end the ability of pipeline companies to use the power of eminent domain to lay gas transmission pipelines on urban residential property in Fort Worth?
· How should state legislation regulating urban drilling be revised to benefit the citizens of Fort Worth?
These questions were assembled by a committee from, I believe, three neighborhood associations who sponsored this forum. The first thing to notice is that no mention is made of the dictatorial, iron-fisted control of the Council by Mayor Moncrief and his “Fort Worth Way” abridgment of free speech at Council hearings. The second thing to notice is that the questions give the impression that there is only philosophical concern about gas drilling and production policy. No crisis is perceived. Thirdly, the questions give the impression that the usual issues facing cities are as important in this election as gas drilling and production policy. Ho hum.
The fact that Moncrief has stuffed the last two gas drilling task forces with gas drillers doesn’t get any attention. The enormous amount of money spent by the gas industry to purchase good will and influence here is not of concern. In short, the gas drilling issues have been diluted with a generous dollop of the usual fare and homogenized so that no special concern is apparent.
The questions have obvious desired answers. And, of course, all candidates were anxious to please. They all sounded the same. The worst thing about it all is that as the candidates have worked through the many candidate forums leading up to this one they have helped to create a sense that everything is normal in Fort Worth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
District 3 voters are filling the seat of the late Chuck Silcox, a man of the people, who for 17 years was their watchdog against profligate spending and neglect of basic city services by the City Council under the guidance of the downtown boomer crowd and various commercial and corporate interests. Even when Chuck was a lone voice in opposition to tax giveaways, a city owned hotel, and other raids on the city treasury he prevented many such ripoffs from being conducted in the back room. He was a thorn in the side of the drilling industry that they desperately want to see gone until all their plans have been executed. Two more years will do the trick for them. That is why Chesapeake and XTO are watching this race like hawks. And that is why there are seven candidates for the District 3 seat.
The only candidate who will prevent the drillers from gaining complete control of the fate of this city is Gary Hogan. The presence of two Lockheed Martin present or past executives, a retired Air Force general, two obvious wannabe professional politicians, and a landman in this race pitted against the only candidate with a record of public service in the fight against the plans of the drilling industry has made it possible to control the dialogue of the campaign so that the gas drilling issue appears to be no more critical than chuckholes in city streets. The plan is an application of the principle stated in the following pithy quote from Thomas Pynchon:
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.”
So…what is at stake in this election? Take a drive out State Highway 377 toward Granbury. Notice how many eighteen wheeler gas well service tank trucks there are on the highway. At Cresson and Granbury notice the recent appearance of parking lots for these trucks and the storage yards for gas well drilling equipment. Notice how much of the landscape is covered with drilling pads and gas well infrastructure. Each drilling pad is visited daily by one of the large tank trucks to empty the polluted water storage tanks that stand on each pad.
The drilling pads are nodes in a network of gas gathering pipelines that carry the raw wet corrosive gas from the wells at a pressure of about 200 pounds per square inch to processing plants where the water and impurities are removed and the dry natural gas is compressed to 1200 pounds per square inch for injection into larger transmission pipelines that carry the gas far away to East Coast markets.
Now think of this network and service activity superimposed on Fort Worth. That is what is coming to town in the next few years if the drillers have their way. Every page of the MAPSCO book of Fort Worth will have several drilling pads. The gas gathering line network inside the city will contain several hundred miles of gathering pipe. It will be necessary to impose eminent domain on residential property to construct this pipeline network. The number of homes that will fall victim to this confiscation of pipeline right of way is many hundreds, perhaps as many as a few thousand.
Moncrief’s job is to minimize the public awareness of these activities, and that is what he’s been doing since he was recruited to run for Mayor by the industry in 2002. Until 2008 pipelines were never mentioned to the public or to City Council members. Then we saw the first appearance of the use of eminent domain on Carter Avenue on the east side and in Westcliff on the south side of town. Suddenly everybody became aware of pipelines and eminent domain. Surprise! Moncrief and Burdette knew this would be coming all along, as did Chesapeake and XTO, but nobody said a word.
Why didn’t Moncrief and Carter Burdette raise concern about what they knew was coming to town? They knew. Due diligence was not performed. Hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil. That was the tactic used by the unholy alliance of drillers and city government in Fort Worth.
There are now more than 1000 gas wells inside the city, with 4000 to 6000 more needed to fully produce the gas underneath the city with current drilling technology. There is still time to manage the situation in a responsible way, but in two years it will be too late.
The statistics of gas pipeline disasters are available and have been presented to Moncrief and his minions. They have simply ignored the warning. They haven’t even been concerned enough to commission an independent investigation by a disinterested qualified statistical mathematician. Instead, all we have seen is a chanting of the mantra of the dominance of mineral rights over surface rights, an untested legal question.
Whenever there is an incident, such as the one in Forest Hill in 2006, the discussion is carefully focused on regulation as the answer. This approach ignores the fact that the disaster statistics are for a nationwide system that is fully regulated in the way in which Fort Worth’s system will be regulated. The focus on regulation is a canard to permit continued unfettered gas well drilling. The question should be, “Does profit really legally trump safety in these matters?” The unholy alliance does not want a definitive answer to this question, so they wave their hands and point to regulation as the solution. That is not due diligence; it is criminal negligence.
If Gary Hogan does not win the District 3 seat and if Moncrief wins reelection, the rest of the plan will become our reality and our albatross for at least the next thirty years.
So…what will that reality look like? What do the statistics say will happen here when the drillers are finished? The math says that the rate of accidents increases as the number of wells and miles of pipeline increase. In a gas field of 3000 wells developed with current technology the statistics show that there will be, on average, two disasters per year. Now, that won’t happen in every 12 month period over the life of the wells. One percent of the time there will be 28 months or more between successive disasters. There may be 5000 to 7000 wells inside Fort Worth if the city gas resources are fully developed. The rate of disasters would obviously increase.
So what would this mean to us who live here? As time goes by the damages caused by these unavoidable events will attract the attention of the insurance industry. Recalling what happened with the black mold scare, we can reasonably expect steep mandatory home insurance premium increases. Mortgage companies will require homeowners within some distance of a gathering pipeline to buy this insurance. The few who own their homes will be required to purchase the insurance or sign a waiver that will exclude coverage for these disasters.
The continuing sequence of disasters will cause an exodus from the city for economic, safety, and health reasons, similar to the history of Detroit and Newark, NJ. Property values and tax revenues will plummet. City services will decay. At some point Wall Street will take notice and degrade bonds for all taxing authorities in the county.
All of this has been brought to the attention of Moncrief and his minions and has been greeted with dead silence.
And though I have given a presentation on all of this to somewhere between 2000 and 2500 Fort Worth voters, the District 3 candidate forums proceed as if there was no crisis.
What kind of disasters are we talking about? The database from which the statistics are computed contains data on “significant incidents”, defined as pipeline failures that cause fire, explosion, mass evacuation, human injury or death, or at least $50,000 in property damage. The data are compiled by the US Department of Transportation. Each state has a designated agency that is responsible for collecting the data. In Texas that agency is the Texas Railroad Commission. Reporting is mandatory by law. The data I used are incidents that occurred in the Barnett Shale in gas gathering lines from 2004 through 2007.
The data do not permit estimation of the damage radius as a function of variables that affect the amount of energy liberated in an incident. But we can get a very good sense of this by looking at some of the reports and published photos. The explosion in Forest Hill in 2006 involved one fatality and the forced evacuation of 500 homes. One in Hood County shattered windows 800 feet away. Total immolation of combustible material within 100 yards is typical. A few pictures may serve to provide a qualitative sense of what these incidents involve.
South Central Texas, date unknown
Parker County, Texas 2007
Edison, NJ 1848 feet from explosion, 1994
Carthage, Texas, 2008
One explosion in Palo Pinto County, Texas in 2005 created a 750 foot wide crater. The incident happened at night, and the flash was seen 100 miles away.
After seeing this information, under what conditions do you think it is safe and responsible to permit the siting of a 16 inch diameter raw gas pipeline carrying gas at 200 pounds per square inch at a distance of 30 feet from a home? That is what current Fort Worth policy would permit. Remember, we are talking hundreds of miles of this kind of pipeline inside the Fort Worth city limits.
The survival of Fort Worth as a viable, livable, vibrant city is what this election is really about.
This is a test...
Those of you who couldn't see the text of my last post...can you see this one?
[END]
[END]
Thursday, April 30, 2009
It’s 4:30 AM! What am I doing at the keyboard at this hour?
It’s very simple, really. I couldn’t sleep, because something happened last night at the District 3 candidates’ forum at Trinity Valley School that was remarkable—and troublesome. “And just what was that?” you ask. The six candidates all began to sound the same at this forum, the umpteenth since the City Council race officially began on March 9, 2009, seven weeks and two days ago. Why? What happened?
To understand this phenomenon you have to know something in particular. I know that something, because for the last two years I have been attending gas drilling task force meetings when possible, getting reports from those meetings I missed, and attending all City Council meetings where critical gas drilling and production issues were being considered. I know who, among the candidates, were at those meetings and who weren’t. Only one of the six candidates thought it was important to be there during those last two years. (I may as well tell you that Mr. Nuttall, the landman candidate, seems to have dropped out of the race or has decided he can win without showing up for candidate forums.)
Over the course of the campaign each candidate has become more and more eloquent on those subjects he/she has the least hands-on experience with. They also have gauged the depth of public interest in each of the areas of city administration that have been on the obligatory list of topics for discussion and debate.
To hear them discuss the gas industry issues you would think they all knew what they were talking about, and they all agreed with Gary Hogan, the only candidate who really cares about and knows the true importance of this issue. Mike Lee from the Startlegram (which becomes more aligned with the gas industry with each passing day) was at the forum and was very busy scribbling away. It will be interesting to see what his editor allows him to say about this forum today. I’ll report back on that later.
When asked what they thought about the use of eminent domain to take right of way from residence property for (gas gathering) pipelines, they were all properly horrified, though some decided to spend a lot of their time talking about circumstances under which they thought eminent domain action would be proper and only gave the actual question a curt short answer—No way.
One of the candidates twice thought that an issue in question was a “two way sword” (mixed metaphor—two way street and two edged sword), and regarding eminent domain he discussed the “New Hampshire” case (close, but no cigar. It was Kelo v. New London, CT). Another Johnny-come-lately candidate asked rhetorically if the audience knew that when one of these pipelines explodes the effective kill radius is 3500 feet. And then this candidate said rather blandly, “These things have no place in residential zoned areas.” None of the other candidates expressed any surprise whatever when the 3500 foot devastation radius was alleged. Of course, I knew, and Gary Hogan knew, that no one on the Council knows what the actual average kill radius is (or cares, for that matter--and 3500 feet has never been mentioned in the available literature).
At the end of the prepared list of questions for the candidates, the moderator asked if any audience members had a question, and I raised my hand and was chosen! The final question that I posed was as follows:
“Gee, you all sound really good tonight. The trouble is, you all sound alike. My question to you is, ‘What makes you the clear choice for this office?’”
The same candidate who dropped the 3500 foot figure gave Hogan a backhanded slap in answering this by stating that one of his/her strongest qualifications is that he/she is not a one issue candidate. Another said that he didn’t think that someone who was an expert in one of the areas of interest had a broad enough background to be the next District 3 councilman. Hogan acquitted himself of these insinuations very nicely, but this question revealed the deplorable fact that those candidates do not think gas industry issues are of any special priority in this election cycle. In fact no candidate but Hogan sees the true importance of the gas industry issues, and that is why they all deserve to lose this election.
To understand this phenomenon you have to know something in particular. I know that something, because for the last two years I have been attending gas drilling task force meetings when possible, getting reports from those meetings I missed, and attending all City Council meetings where critical gas drilling and production issues were being considered. I know who, among the candidates, were at those meetings and who weren’t. Only one of the six candidates thought it was important to be there during those last two years. (I may as well tell you that Mr. Nuttall, the landman candidate, seems to have dropped out of the race or has decided he can win without showing up for candidate forums.)
Over the course of the campaign each candidate has become more and more eloquent on those subjects he/she has the least hands-on experience with. They also have gauged the depth of public interest in each of the areas of city administration that have been on the obligatory list of topics for discussion and debate.
To hear them discuss the gas industry issues you would think they all knew what they were talking about, and they all agreed with Gary Hogan, the only candidate who really cares about and knows the true importance of this issue. Mike Lee from the Startlegram (which becomes more aligned with the gas industry with each passing day) was at the forum and was very busy scribbling away. It will be interesting to see what his editor allows him to say about this forum today. I’ll report back on that later.
When asked what they thought about the use of eminent domain to take right of way from residence property for (gas gathering) pipelines, they were all properly horrified, though some decided to spend a lot of their time talking about circumstances under which they thought eminent domain action would be proper and only gave the actual question a curt short answer—No way.
One of the candidates twice thought that an issue in question was a “two way sword” (mixed metaphor—two way street and two edged sword), and regarding eminent domain he discussed the “New Hampshire” case (close, but no cigar. It was Kelo v. New London, CT). Another Johnny-come-lately candidate asked rhetorically if the audience knew that when one of these pipelines explodes the effective kill radius is 3500 feet. And then this candidate said rather blandly, “These things have no place in residential zoned areas.” None of the other candidates expressed any surprise whatever when the 3500 foot devastation radius was alleged. Of course, I knew, and Gary Hogan knew, that no one on the Council knows what the actual average kill radius is (or cares, for that matter--and 3500 feet has never been mentioned in the available literature).
At the end of the prepared list of questions for the candidates, the moderator asked if any audience members had a question, and I raised my hand and was chosen! The final question that I posed was as follows:
“Gee, you all sound really good tonight. The trouble is, you all sound alike. My question to you is, ‘What makes you the clear choice for this office?’”
The same candidate who dropped the 3500 foot figure gave Hogan a backhanded slap in answering this by stating that one of his/her strongest qualifications is that he/she is not a one issue candidate. Another said that he didn’t think that someone who was an expert in one of the areas of interest had a broad enough background to be the next District 3 councilman. Hogan acquitted himself of these insinuations very nicely, but this question revealed the deplorable fact that those candidates do not think gas industry issues are of any special priority in this election cycle. In fact no candidate but Hogan sees the true importance of the gas industry issues, and that is why they all deserve to lose this election.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
My Presentation on urban gas drilling from July, 2008
For those of you who haven't seen one of my presentations, here's one that I just now discovered on YouTube. It was given in July of 2008 to a neighborhood association in Meadowbrook. You won't get to see my Powerpoint slides here, just my speech.
The Assistant City Attorney, Sarah Fullenwider, and another City Staffer, a public relations person were in the audience. The staffer came up to me after the meeting, gave me her card, and asked me to send her a copy of my Powerpoints. Also, at this meeting I caught a Chesapeake employee tinkering with my laptop in front of the entire audience. She had inserted a memory stick in my USB port as was busily trying to download my presentation. I took the memory stick out of the port and asked her what she thought she was doing. She said that someone had told her she could use it for a minute. Yeah, right!
Why didn't the Mayor and City Council ever ask me to give them my presentation? I told them I'd be happy to give them a private viewing. Chuck Silcox came to several of my public presentations, but the Mayor and the rest of the Council showed absolutely no interest.
In November, 2008, I delivered a version of the presentation as an invited paper at the Pipeline Safety Trust annual conference in New Orleans. They were interested enough that they paid all my expenses, and my presentation was webcast live and now is available for viewing at http://www.pstrust.org
Saturday, April 11, 2009
News...Gary Hogan has been endorsed by the TCCLC.
Thursday Gary learned that the Tarrant County Central Labor Council, made up of all local AFL-CIO unions, has endorsed him for District 3 City Council. You heard it here first.
This is wonderful news since Gary is truly a man of the people who has served this City and his neighborhood for the last 10 years. Gary is the only candidate in this race whose record shows that he is interested only in serving his constituents. He has no aspirations to higher office and no fat bank account running over with donations from special corporate interests. He is running against two financial heavy hitters, both of whom are outspending Gary by at least 8 to 1, and one of whom has been the beneficiary of a fundraiser hosted by Rosie Moncrief. This same candidate has been seen at a candidate forum sitting with Danny Scarth, Carter Burdette, and Jungus Jordan.
The present mayor and his Council have not served the people well. They have bestowed lavish tax gifts on Cabela's and other companies that have not produced the tax benefits that were promised to offset the tax abatements. They have botched the handling of the gas industry, placing every neighborhood in the city in danger of an explosion or fire due to heavy industrial installations placed in residential areas by threat or exercise of eminent domain. The negative economic consequences of such an unwise policy will become manifest when it is generally realized that Fort Worth homes may have high pressure raw gas pipelines passing within a few feet of their foundations and when the insurance industry decides this risk will require much higher insurance rates. During this Council's tenure someone has frightened the city staff into requiring a Freedom of Information Act application approval before the most basic public information will be provided to inquiring taxpayers. The mayor has turned city council meetings into gatherings where unwanted information is ignored and freedom of speech is abridged to the point where the truth can only be spoken in the blandest of terms.
Chuck Silcox fought these kinds of unwise proposals. We need Gary Hogan to continue that fight. Otherwise it will be open season on the pocketbooks of District 3 residents.
This is wonderful news since Gary is truly a man of the people who has served this City and his neighborhood for the last 10 years. Gary is the only candidate in this race whose record shows that he is interested only in serving his constituents. He has no aspirations to higher office and no fat bank account running over with donations from special corporate interests. He is running against two financial heavy hitters, both of whom are outspending Gary by at least 8 to 1, and one of whom has been the beneficiary of a fundraiser hosted by Rosie Moncrief. This same candidate has been seen at a candidate forum sitting with Danny Scarth, Carter Burdette, and Jungus Jordan.
The present mayor and his Council have not served the people well. They have bestowed lavish tax gifts on Cabela's and other companies that have not produced the tax benefits that were promised to offset the tax abatements. They have botched the handling of the gas industry, placing every neighborhood in the city in danger of an explosion or fire due to heavy industrial installations placed in residential areas by threat or exercise of eminent domain. The negative economic consequences of such an unwise policy will become manifest when it is generally realized that Fort Worth homes may have high pressure raw gas pipelines passing within a few feet of their foundations and when the insurance industry decides this risk will require much higher insurance rates. During this Council's tenure someone has frightened the city staff into requiring a Freedom of Information Act application approval before the most basic public information will be provided to inquiring taxpayers. The mayor has turned city council meetings into gatherings where unwanted information is ignored and freedom of speech is abridged to the point where the truth can only be spoken in the blandest of terms.
Chuck Silcox fought these kinds of unwise proposals. We need Gary Hogan to continue that fight. Otherwise it will be open season on the pocketbooks of District 3 residents.
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
In August 2008 Al Armendariz, Ph. D., a researcher and professor at SMU, released a report titled "Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements". He summarized that report for the joint meeting of the City Council and the Gas Drilling Task Force in August. Horror of horrors, his study estimated that the largest contributors to the air toxic emissions from gas production activity were the condensate tanks, followed by the engine exhausts. The September 30, 2008 draft of this report said. "The engines, tanks, and fugitive and intermittent sources combined are expected to emit approximately 620 tons per day total of smog-forming compounds, substantially greater than the emissions from other sources in Dallas-Fort Worth area, such as the major airports or on-road motor vehicles."
This information was received by the City Council silently. Before long Dr. Ed Ireland of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council was questioning the report, though on what basis it wasn't clear, since Ireland is an economist, not an environmental scientist. The Council remained silent, not even sending out a list of questions to Dr. Armendariz or asking him to return for more intimate discussions. They simply ignored the report in public.
I didn't follow the tit-for-tat on this from September to sometime in March when Danny Scarth, whose scientific credentials are obscure, announced that an EPA report disagreed with the Armendariz report. It said that the quality of air in the DFW area improved steadily over 2008. The announcement must have been by way of justification for the Council's silence on the Armendariz report and their continuation of business as usual regarding the gas industry.
Now we have some answers in today's [4/09/2009] Startlegram as to why these two reports may not be contradictory after all. We learned today that four of TXI's cement plants were idled in 2008. We know that these plants are responsible for much of the air pollution in the DFW area. I don't have any numbers to relate, but it's clearly feasible that these plant closings are responsible for the improved air quality.
What is clear is that the Fort Worth City Council is like the three wise monkeys, "Hear no evil." "See no evil." and "Speak no evil." A public hearing is not a hearing at all. The Council does not hear anything that creates a problem for their plans.
This information was received by the City Council silently. Before long Dr. Ed Ireland of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council was questioning the report, though on what basis it wasn't clear, since Ireland is an economist, not an environmental scientist. The Council remained silent, not even sending out a list of questions to Dr. Armendariz or asking him to return for more intimate discussions. They simply ignored the report in public.
I didn't follow the tit-for-tat on this from September to sometime in March when Danny Scarth, whose scientific credentials are obscure, announced that an EPA report disagreed with the Armendariz report. It said that the quality of air in the DFW area improved steadily over 2008. The announcement must have been by way of justification for the Council's silence on the Armendariz report and their continuation of business as usual regarding the gas industry.
Now we have some answers in today's [4/09/2009] Startlegram as to why these two reports may not be contradictory after all. We learned today that four of TXI's cement plants were idled in 2008. We know that these plants are responsible for much of the air pollution in the DFW area. I don't have any numbers to relate, but it's clearly feasible that these plant closings are responsible for the improved air quality.
What is clear is that the Fort Worth City Council is like the three wise monkeys, "Hear no evil." "See no evil." and "Speak no evil." A public hearing is not a hearing at all. The Council does not hear anything that creates a problem for their plans.
Another night of kabuki theater--City Council, April 7, 2009
It was another night of kabuki theater, of course. But it was important kabuki theater. If none of us attend they can say whatever they want about what they approved.
Moncrief was in fine fettle and looking robust. The first hour and a half was spent conducting ceremonies to laud various people for their fine contributions to our wonderful city. A new police chief was officially sworn in (again) and Moncrief presented him with two surprises. His parents had been flown in (at our expense, no doubt) to witness this second swearing in. Each council person delivered an obsequious speech about how fortunate we are to have this new chief. Then Moncrief made a big deal about a new policy instituted for this new chief, not only because of his incredible record, but also because we are the 17th largest city in the US now, and big cities have their police chiefs wear four stars on their collars instead of the three we had previously prescribed.
Meanwhile people who had serious business to bring before the council had to wait, but they performed the important duty of scripted adulation at the appropriate points in the script.
Finally the council got down to business. There were three gas drilling related items on the agenda. They all had to do with a package deal CHK had to offer the city in exchange for abandoning their pipeline to nowhere through the residential area south of TCU where the dead-on-arrival drill site by the TCU football stadium is located. Of course, Kevin Strawser, the PR front man for CHK who delivered the presentation, never mentioned that feature of the deal--probably because so many of us had seen through that ploy. Carter Burdette was strangely silent for a change. Of course, as usual CHK was given unlimited time to pitch their case to the monolithic 9 on the dais and the rest of us. Then the people were allowed their usual three minutes to speak.
There were a number of Hispanic homeowners whose homes were within 600 ft of the multiple well pad sites. Their stories, pieced together, painted a picture of typical deception and coercion by the industry landmen who obtained the waivers necessary to put in these 30 odd wells within 600 ft of their homes. Time was, not so long ago, when it was necessary for the drillers to get 100% waivers to even come before the council with an application. Time was when such applications were called "high impact" applications. No more! CHK boasted 90-odd percent waivers in one case and 79% in another, for applications that are now called something else other than High Impact use. I don't recall what the new term is.
I spoke about the arbitrariness of the 600 ft setback rule and how it had nothing to do with public safety. I told them (once again) that the data show that 600 ft is insufficient to define the kill radius of an explosion of a 16 inch gathering line.
A new witness spoke about a significant incident at a CHK site on Henderson recently in which there was a fracking accident that caused a pool of fracking fluid to spread over the entire width of the drilling pad. He showed a photo of it. You could see what appeared to be a white foam on top of the liquid at the center of the spill (if "spill" is an accurate description of what happened). The man said that this foam was a chemical mix placed there by workers who were trying to clean up. Apparently the incident attracted the attention of nearby residents who the man said were frightened. He mentioned that there were children who were frightened. None of us had heard of this incident and were wanting to hear more. But those on the dais sat silent and stone-faced and made no response. The man said it was time to stop the drilling and ask some serious questions. Ho Hum! Stone-faced silence. Moncrief warned this man about his reference to CHK during his three minutes and said he'd better not disobey the speaking rules. Finally, we were treated to the obligatory unlimited council member Wesson Oil party speeches about how in all these hearings there are winners and losers and it is the difficult job of the council to make decisions. Carter Burdette was mercifully silent for a change. All bit players in the script were thanked for their concern and sacrifice of time for civic duties, and they assured all of us that we had been heard.
Joel Burns, who had orchestrated this deal, spoke of how he had been concerned about the lack of a master plan for District 9 (and, oh, by-the-way, a "small part of District 3", which has had no representation since Chuck Silcox passed away). So he was pleased that CHK had developed this "master plan" and he praised it and their civic mindedness and pronounced it good. There were other obsequious speeches to fit the standard requirement for this act of the kabuki theater form. The vote was unanimous.
Note how perception management is used here. "High Impact" is gone. The need for 100% waivers is gone. The need for 600 ft setback is gone, and now we have a "master plan". They have stolen our idea for a master plan, twisted it beyond recognition, and fed it back to us with a straight face. Kabuki theater has replaced the democratic process, relegated public safety to the dust bin, and glorified the looters.
Moncrief was in fine fettle and looking robust. The first hour and a half was spent conducting ceremonies to laud various people for their fine contributions to our wonderful city. A new police chief was officially sworn in (again) and Moncrief presented him with two surprises. His parents had been flown in (at our expense, no doubt) to witness this second swearing in. Each council person delivered an obsequious speech about how fortunate we are to have this new chief. Then Moncrief made a big deal about a new policy instituted for this new chief, not only because of his incredible record, but also because we are the 17th largest city in the US now, and big cities have their police chiefs wear four stars on their collars instead of the three we had previously prescribed.
Meanwhile people who had serious business to bring before the council had to wait, but they performed the important duty of scripted adulation at the appropriate points in the script.
Finally the council got down to business. There were three gas drilling related items on the agenda. They all had to do with a package deal CHK had to offer the city in exchange for abandoning their pipeline to nowhere through the residential area south of TCU where the dead-on-arrival drill site by the TCU football stadium is located. Of course, Kevin Strawser, the PR front man for CHK who delivered the presentation, never mentioned that feature of the deal--probably because so many of us had seen through that ploy. Carter Burdette was strangely silent for a change. Of course, as usual CHK was given unlimited time to pitch their case to the monolithic 9 on the dais and the rest of us. Then the people were allowed their usual three minutes to speak.
There were a number of Hispanic homeowners whose homes were within 600 ft of the multiple well pad sites. Their stories, pieced together, painted a picture of typical deception and coercion by the industry landmen who obtained the waivers necessary to put in these 30 odd wells within 600 ft of their homes. Time was, not so long ago, when it was necessary for the drillers to get 100% waivers to even come before the council with an application. Time was when such applications were called "high impact" applications. No more! CHK boasted 90-odd percent waivers in one case and 79% in another, for applications that are now called something else other than High Impact use. I don't recall what the new term is.
I spoke about the arbitrariness of the 600 ft setback rule and how it had nothing to do with public safety. I told them (once again) that the data show that 600 ft is insufficient to define the kill radius of an explosion of a 16 inch gathering line.
A new witness spoke about a significant incident at a CHK site on Henderson recently in which there was a fracking accident that caused a pool of fracking fluid to spread over the entire width of the drilling pad. He showed a photo of it. You could see what appeared to be a white foam on top of the liquid at the center of the spill (if "spill" is an accurate description of what happened). The man said that this foam was a chemical mix placed there by workers who were trying to clean up. Apparently the incident attracted the attention of nearby residents who the man said were frightened. He mentioned that there were children who were frightened. None of us had heard of this incident and were wanting to hear more. But those on the dais sat silent and stone-faced and made no response. The man said it was time to stop the drilling and ask some serious questions. Ho Hum! Stone-faced silence. Moncrief warned this man about his reference to CHK during his three minutes and said he'd better not disobey the speaking rules. Finally, we were treated to the obligatory unlimited council member Wesson Oil party speeches about how in all these hearings there are winners and losers and it is the difficult job of the council to make decisions. Carter Burdette was mercifully silent for a change. All bit players in the script were thanked for their concern and sacrifice of time for civic duties, and they assured all of us that we had been heard.
Joel Burns, who had orchestrated this deal, spoke of how he had been concerned about the lack of a master plan for District 9 (and, oh, by-the-way, a "small part of District 3", which has had no representation since Chuck Silcox passed away). So he was pleased that CHK had developed this "master plan" and he praised it and their civic mindedness and pronounced it good. There were other obsequious speeches to fit the standard requirement for this act of the kabuki theater form. The vote was unanimous.
Note how perception management is used here. "High Impact" is gone. The need for 100% waivers is gone. The need for 600 ft setback is gone, and now we have a "master plan". They have stolen our idea for a master plan, twisted it beyond recognition, and fed it back to us with a straight face. Kabuki theater has replaced the democratic process, relegated public safety to the dust bin, and glorified the looters.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Citizens ask tough questions at forum
Monday evening at a District 3 candidate forum at United Methodist Church, 5000 Southwest Blvd, a man asked the question, "Who among you has had a fundraiser hosted by the Moncriefs?" The only one to answer that he had was Eric Fox.
Another man, after some derogatory remarks about the present mayor, asked, "Has Mike Moncrief endorsed any one of you?" The answer was no.
It was rather clear that this audience, from the Ridglea Hills neighborhood Association, was very much looking for a candidate who would try to carry on in Chuck Silcox's shoes. Of course, every one of them tried mightily to convince them that they were definitely the next Chuck.
Somehow, I don't think anyone but Gary Hogan came close to being a convincing speaker on that subject. The master of ceremonies, Sherryl Cornelius, said that in reality, nobody, in her view, could fill those shoes.
Another man, after some derogatory remarks about the present mayor, asked, "Has Mike Moncrief endorsed any one of you?" The answer was no.
It was rather clear that this audience, from the Ridglea Hills neighborhood Association, was very much looking for a candidate who would try to carry on in Chuck Silcox's shoes. Of course, every one of them tried mightily to convince them that they were definitely the next Chuck.
Somehow, I don't think anyone but Gary Hogan came close to being a convincing speaker on that subject. The master of ceremonies, Sherryl Cornelius, said that in reality, nobody, in her view, could fill those shoes.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Plane crashes and pipeline disasters
Take a look at the data on the website, http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm . I’m sure none of you will question whether the data is essentially accurate or meaningful. It all makes sense. Oh, there could be some human error in compiling the data, and maybe some of the columns of percentages don’t add up to exactly 100%. But there is an obvious reason why that happens…round-off error. And most of you don’t feel that this negates the entire presentation, I’m sure.
As you look over the data you see how it can be sliced and diced in different ways to focus on certain questions. And there are certain questions that are not addressed, and no explanation is deemed necessary for the omissions. For example, there is no attempt to answer the question, “How many crashes happened on Mars?” That, of course, would be a nonsensical question, wouldn’t it? Because all plane crashes happen on Earth, since that is where air travel occurs.
The statistics of plane crashes are interesting. We can find out what percentage of all crashes occurred in what phase of flight, for example. Of course, we could parse that statistic and argue that all crashes occur upon landing, but when we do that we have no trouble realizing that what the statistic refers to is the phase of flight during which the critical fatal failure occurred that resulted in the crash. And we don’t dismiss all the data because of that analytical exercise, do we?
The percentage of crashes that occurred among commercial airliner flights as opposed to general aviation (private planes) is also a very interesting way to dice the data. The point is that there is no uniformly “correct” way to dice the data. It is diced to answer particular questions.
One particular aspect of plane crash statistics that is very significant is that every person who died in these crashes made a conscious decision to take the calculable risk of a crash when they boarded the fatal flight unless they were a prisoner or a minor whose parent made that decision. Another important aspect of the risk is that it is a risk that exists only for a finite period, not one that is ever-present day after day.
It is easy to understand how the number of plane crashes in a given period of time is related to the number of flight hours logged for that period.
Now let’s consider the risk of pipeline disasters.
Pipeline Disaster Statistics
One of the first things to notice about pipeline disaster statistics is that very few people have any ideas about them at all. Until the industry had been here in Fort Worth long enough for people to understand that there were serious risks to urban gas production as well as money to be made from it, no one, not even the city fathers, gave it a thought.
The statistics are not easy for the man on the street to find either. They are compiled by an agency, the Texas Railroad Commission, that boasts that it is in business to facilitate the oil and gas business. Certainly, they wouldn’t want to publicize the risks associated with oil and gas production if they could avoid it. But they are required to compile these statistics for the federal government.
The federal agency in charge is the U. S. Department of Transportation Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration (PHMSA). Although the word, “safety” is prominent in the name of this agency, their actual operations indicate that safety does not come first in their mission. What comes first is a five foot shelf of law and regulations that is designed to create an illusion of a “safety first” mentality, while in reality being as non-intrusive and permissive as industry can entice the agency to be.
It is not in industry’s interest to publish statistical data that quantifies the number of disasters per mile of pipeline per year. Such a statistic might impede development of the industry. Consequently, the data are buried in reams of spreadsheets that PHMSA publishes with very little information provided on how to use the data in analyses.
As a result, no one had defined a meaningful way to slice and dice the available raw data by the time I began to consider the problem. My career as a scientist and engineer was spent doing just this sort of data analysis and the mathematical modeling necessary to assess the meaning of such data. At this time, even though I have completed the analysis and modeling—which was a very routine exercise—and have published it through the Pipeline Safety Trust, there is local resistance to the acceptance of my paper reporting the results. The resistance is encouraged and financed by the gas drilling and production industry, of course, as one should expect. Nevertheless, I am committed to getting the word out to all who will listen.
The similarities between plane crash data and pipeline disaster data are instructive. First, thanks to PHMSA, a tremendous database exists, just as the plane crash database is extensive. Second, we can slice and dice the data to answer specific questions, just as can be done with plane crash data. Third, there is an intuitive analogy between the number of crashes per flight hour and the number of pipeline disasters per mile of pipeline. The more hours of flight the more crashes, and the more miles of pipeline the more disasters per unit time.
However, there are some differences—equally instructive. First, while it is nonsensical to dice the plane crash data by geographical area, it is very important to do so with pipeline disaster data. Pipeline disasters occur more frequently in heavily populated areas than in unpopulated areas, and when many miles of pipeline are confined to an urban area it is certain that there will be more disasters in such an area than in an equal number of miles of pipeline in the Alaskan wilderness, for example. Thus, it is no stretch of imagination to expect that when there are 300 miles of gas gathering pipeline running through urban Fort Worth there will be more disasters per mile of pipe per year in Fort Worth than in an equal number of miles of pipe spread out in a rural area.
Another difference between plane crashes and pipeline disasters is that eminent domain is to be used to force siting of pipelines through residential neighborhoods in Fort Worth too close to home foundations for safety—by any calculation. This puts people who live and work near these pipelines at risk of fatality, not by their own choice, as in the case of airliner flights, but by the decisions of others who do not have any risk at all but do have financial incentive to force the risk on others. Plus, these risks are borne daily instead of for a short few hours of flight.
Consequences of accepting the risks
There has been less disagreement about the consequences than there has been about the risks, but it is worth repeating those consequences here anyway.
If we allow the industry to place wells and pipelines according to present ordinances and their interpretation, there will be a pipeline disaster here, on average, every four to six months for the life of the gas field, depending upon the number of miles of gas gathering lines inside the city. That’s a statistical certainty. The time between disasters could be as long as 28 months in one percent of cases, but on average it will happen every four to six months.
What is such a disaster? It is, by definition, a pipeline leak or rupture that causes 1) fire, 2) explosion, 3) at least $50,000 in property damage, 4) mass evacuation, or 5) injury or loss of human life. Pipelines as close to homes as is presently permitted can cause homes with pier and beam foundations to explode. It is typical that pipeline ruptures result in explosions that create large craters and huge fires that burn for hours before the fuel can be cut off.
Such disasters occurring repeatedly in Fort Worth are certain to cause property insurance to increase steeply, as was the case with black mold. Also, the repeated disasters will cause a population decrease as property values sink and the city gains a negative national reputation. In the end, the city will shrink in population and decay. We are looking at a future similar to Detroit, MI or Newark, NJ. This is not an exaggeration, folks.
What you can do
Support Gary Hogan for City Council, District 3, regardless of where you live in Fort Worth. If another yes-man for Mayor Moncrief is elected on May 9 this problem will never be solved.
Vote for Clyde Picht for Mayor. Clyde is against this disastrous gas industry policy.
As you look over the data you see how it can be sliced and diced in different ways to focus on certain questions. And there are certain questions that are not addressed, and no explanation is deemed necessary for the omissions. For example, there is no attempt to answer the question, “How many crashes happened on Mars?” That, of course, would be a nonsensical question, wouldn’t it? Because all plane crashes happen on Earth, since that is where air travel occurs.
The statistics of plane crashes are interesting. We can find out what percentage of all crashes occurred in what phase of flight, for example. Of course, we could parse that statistic and argue that all crashes occur upon landing, but when we do that we have no trouble realizing that what the statistic refers to is the phase of flight during which the critical fatal failure occurred that resulted in the crash. And we don’t dismiss all the data because of that analytical exercise, do we?
The percentage of crashes that occurred among commercial airliner flights as opposed to general aviation (private planes) is also a very interesting way to dice the data. The point is that there is no uniformly “correct” way to dice the data. It is diced to answer particular questions.
One particular aspect of plane crash statistics that is very significant is that every person who died in these crashes made a conscious decision to take the calculable risk of a crash when they boarded the fatal flight unless they were a prisoner or a minor whose parent made that decision. Another important aspect of the risk is that it is a risk that exists only for a finite period, not one that is ever-present day after day.
It is easy to understand how the number of plane crashes in a given period of time is related to the number of flight hours logged for that period.
Now let’s consider the risk of pipeline disasters.
Pipeline Disaster Statistics
One of the first things to notice about pipeline disaster statistics is that very few people have any ideas about them at all. Until the industry had been here in Fort Worth long enough for people to understand that there were serious risks to urban gas production as well as money to be made from it, no one, not even the city fathers, gave it a thought.
The statistics are not easy for the man on the street to find either. They are compiled by an agency, the Texas Railroad Commission, that boasts that it is in business to facilitate the oil and gas business. Certainly, they wouldn’t want to publicize the risks associated with oil and gas production if they could avoid it. But they are required to compile these statistics for the federal government.
The federal agency in charge is the U. S. Department of Transportation Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration (PHMSA). Although the word, “safety” is prominent in the name of this agency, their actual operations indicate that safety does not come first in their mission. What comes first is a five foot shelf of law and regulations that is designed to create an illusion of a “safety first” mentality, while in reality being as non-intrusive and permissive as industry can entice the agency to be.
It is not in industry’s interest to publish statistical data that quantifies the number of disasters per mile of pipeline per year. Such a statistic might impede development of the industry. Consequently, the data are buried in reams of spreadsheets that PHMSA publishes with very little information provided on how to use the data in analyses.
As a result, no one had defined a meaningful way to slice and dice the available raw data by the time I began to consider the problem. My career as a scientist and engineer was spent doing just this sort of data analysis and the mathematical modeling necessary to assess the meaning of such data. At this time, even though I have completed the analysis and modeling—which was a very routine exercise—and have published it through the Pipeline Safety Trust, there is local resistance to the acceptance of my paper reporting the results. The resistance is encouraged and financed by the gas drilling and production industry, of course, as one should expect. Nevertheless, I am committed to getting the word out to all who will listen.
The similarities between plane crash data and pipeline disaster data are instructive. First, thanks to PHMSA, a tremendous database exists, just as the plane crash database is extensive. Second, we can slice and dice the data to answer specific questions, just as can be done with plane crash data. Third, there is an intuitive analogy between the number of crashes per flight hour and the number of pipeline disasters per mile of pipeline. The more hours of flight the more crashes, and the more miles of pipeline the more disasters per unit time.
However, there are some differences—equally instructive. First, while it is nonsensical to dice the plane crash data by geographical area, it is very important to do so with pipeline disaster data. Pipeline disasters occur more frequently in heavily populated areas than in unpopulated areas, and when many miles of pipeline are confined to an urban area it is certain that there will be more disasters in such an area than in an equal number of miles of pipeline in the Alaskan wilderness, for example. Thus, it is no stretch of imagination to expect that when there are 300 miles of gas gathering pipeline running through urban Fort Worth there will be more disasters per mile of pipe per year in Fort Worth than in an equal number of miles of pipe spread out in a rural area.
Another difference between plane crashes and pipeline disasters is that eminent domain is to be used to force siting of pipelines through residential neighborhoods in Fort Worth too close to home foundations for safety—by any calculation. This puts people who live and work near these pipelines at risk of fatality, not by their own choice, as in the case of airliner flights, but by the decisions of others who do not have any risk at all but do have financial incentive to force the risk on others. Plus, these risks are borne daily instead of for a short few hours of flight.
Consequences of accepting the risks
There has been less disagreement about the consequences than there has been about the risks, but it is worth repeating those consequences here anyway.
If we allow the industry to place wells and pipelines according to present ordinances and their interpretation, there will be a pipeline disaster here, on average, every four to six months for the life of the gas field, depending upon the number of miles of gas gathering lines inside the city. That’s a statistical certainty. The time between disasters could be as long as 28 months in one percent of cases, but on average it will happen every four to six months.
What is such a disaster? It is, by definition, a pipeline leak or rupture that causes 1) fire, 2) explosion, 3) at least $50,000 in property damage, 4) mass evacuation, or 5) injury or loss of human life. Pipelines as close to homes as is presently permitted can cause homes with pier and beam foundations to explode. It is typical that pipeline ruptures result in explosions that create large craters and huge fires that burn for hours before the fuel can be cut off.
Such disasters occurring repeatedly in Fort Worth are certain to cause property insurance to increase steeply, as was the case with black mold. Also, the repeated disasters will cause a population decrease as property values sink and the city gains a negative national reputation. In the end, the city will shrink in population and decay. We are looking at a future similar to Detroit, MI or Newark, NJ. This is not an exaggeration, folks.
What you can do
Support Gary Hogan for City Council, District 3, regardless of where you live in Fort Worth. If another yes-man for Mayor Moncrief is elected on May 9 this problem will never be solved.
Vote for Clyde Picht for Mayor. Clyde is against this disastrous gas industry policy.
Coming soon...to your neighborhood
This picture was taken about 1:30 PM on 4-09-09 from Old Weatherford Hwy near Chapel Creek subdivision west of Loop 820. This is a typical Chesapeake drilling pad. The truck is collecting condensate from the tanks in the background. On the right is the lift compressor for this pad. It is powered by raw gas produced by the wells. The tan vertical wall is an acoustic blanket that is supposed to decrease the sound level coming from the compressor. The dark object showing above the acoustic blanket is the exhaust muffler for the compressor. The sound level was loudest at the low frequencies--you know, the ones that vibrate your body when a kid drives by in a car with a loud booming sound system going full blast. The idea that such a compressor will be needed on every drilling pad in Fort Worth and that many will be within 600 ft of homes is alarming.
The truck comes daily. The hose is about 6 inches in diameter and removes liquid from the bottom of the big tanks. It is an accordion-style hose. You can see it snaking over the spill barrier in front of the tanks and bending upward to the level of the truck's tank. There must be a pump somewhere to pump the liquid up into the truck.
Can you imagine this sort of thing happening daily at your neighborhood drill pad? Did they tell you about all this when they asked you to sign that lease?
Why are these people at these forums?
There was a District 3 candidate forum at my neighborhood elementary school a couple of weeks ago--the school that Chesapeake thought was OK to put at risk so that my neighbors would not be deprived of their rights to mineral profits. It was on a Tuesday night and was locally advertised by email to the two neighborhood associations involved.
There were quite a number of people in attendance, and all seven candidates showed up to speak. At the end of the evening's speeches I noticed Kevin Strawser, the latest Chesapeake spokesman, leaving his seat in the middle of the auditorium. He departed the building without speaking to any of the candidates or anyone else in the room.
A few nights later, at a District 3 forum at Lost Creek Golf Club, another industry representative, Walter Duuease of XTO, did the same duty. He came quietly, said not a word during Q&A, and left after the speeches.
Why do you think CHK and XTO are so interested in the District 3 City Council race?
I don't happen to know what Brian Eppstein looks like, but I wouldn't be surprised if he also attended these forums. On the other hand, maybe he just sends one of his people instead.
There were quite a number of people in attendance, and all seven candidates showed up to speak. At the end of the evening's speeches I noticed Kevin Strawser, the latest Chesapeake spokesman, leaving his seat in the middle of the auditorium. He departed the building without speaking to any of the candidates or anyone else in the room.
A few nights later, at a District 3 forum at Lost Creek Golf Club, another industry representative, Walter Duuease of XTO, did the same duty. He came quietly, said not a word during Q&A, and left after the speeches.
Why do you think CHK and XTO are so interested in the District 3 City Council race?
I don't happen to know what Brian Eppstein looks like, but I wouldn't be surprised if he also attended these forums. On the other hand, maybe he just sends one of his people instead.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Why I'm supporting Gary Hogan for City Council, District 3
Two weeks before I met Gary Hogan in 2007 I had received a written gas lease offer from a landman in the mail. As a retired chemical engineer and physicist who had served two years on a gas drilling advisory committee for the Philmont Scout Ranch in the Sangre de Cristo mountains of New Mexico, I had many questions, none of which were even suggested in the letter. I sent an email to Chuck Silcox, my Councilman, expressing my concerns and asking his advice.
That evening Chuck called me and talked for two hours. He explained how such a proposal could be treated by the Mayor and Council in such a casual manner. He suggested that I call Gary Hogan and ask him to help. Gary had been Chuck's appointee to the 2006 city gas drilling task force. Gary agreed to speak to my neighborhood association about gas drilling issues.
At a meeting at my neighborhood elementary school both Gary and I spoke, and Chuck attended. As a result, the ill-advised plan to drill our neighborhood was withdrawn and redesigned. The plan had been to drill so close to the school that a typical accident would have blown out all the windows in the school.
Gary has since served on the 2008 gas drilling task force, has spoken at more than a hundred neighborhood meetings, and was asked by Chuck to run for the District 3 Council seat this year.
No other candidate has a grasp of the importance of this issue to the future of Fort Worth. No other candidate will stand up to the Mayor. Vote for Gary Hogan on May 9.
That evening Chuck called me and talked for two hours. He explained how such a proposal could be treated by the Mayor and Council in such a casual manner. He suggested that I call Gary Hogan and ask him to help. Gary had been Chuck's appointee to the 2006 city gas drilling task force. Gary agreed to speak to my neighborhood association about gas drilling issues.
At a meeting at my neighborhood elementary school both Gary and I spoke, and Chuck attended. As a result, the ill-advised plan to drill our neighborhood was withdrawn and redesigned. The plan had been to drill so close to the school that a typical accident would have blown out all the windows in the school.
Gary has since served on the 2008 gas drilling task force, has spoken at more than a hundred neighborhood meetings, and was asked by Chuck to run for the District 3 Council seat this year.
No other candidate has a grasp of the importance of this issue to the future of Fort Worth. No other candidate will stand up to the Mayor. Vote for Gary Hogan on May 9.
Friday, April 3, 2009
What we need, and what they're offering
The City Council election of 2009 begins on April 27 when early voting starts and ends on May 9, election day. There are seven candidates in the District 3 race. You may wonder why there are so many candidates for an unpaid job that traditionally is about bread and butter issues like police and fire protection, street maintenance, parks, street lighting, zoning, water, sewer, and the like.
The purpose of this blog is to shine a spotlight on the candidates and explain why there are so many people running for District 3 this year. We'll keep an eye on the money--where it's coming from, how much is being spent by each candidate, and why.
This is important, because in District 3 we were represented for the last 17 years by Councilman Chuck Silcox, a man of the people whose focus was on the needs of his constituents and who did his best to keep downtown special interests out of their pocketbooks.
Since 2003 Chuck had been battling a Mayor who demanded unquestioning loyalty and was very vindictive toward Council members who disagreed with his plans. But Chuck stood up and provided a voice for the people. When Chuck passed away in October of 2008 the Mayor decided not to hold a special election because he didn't want to risk getting another independent thinker on the Council at a time when the Trinity River Vision project and the gas drillers had so much business before the Council.
There might be a demand for a city audit. (There hasn't been one in years.) There might be a fight over the right of drillers' subsidiary pipeline companies to condemn homes and front yards for the purpose of gas gathering pipeline right of way--all for private profit. There might be some resistance to the recent practice of granting generous tax abatements to businesses seeking a handout as a condition for locating here. Without Chuck on the Council the Mayor had a very compliant City Council, so District 3 remains without representation for seven months while the Mayor's agenda proceeds full tilt. The proffered excuse was the cost of a special election.
If the upcoming election didn't have crucial special interest issues at stake one would historically expect the District 3 race to be rather uninteresting as such elections go, but this year there are seven candidates.
To listen to the stump speeches offered by the candidates in public forums, every candidate loved Chuck Silcox and the way he represented the people. And they all promise to follow in Chuck's footsteps. Some talk about how they have "worked with" Chuck in the past. But what would you expect them to say? I can imagine the worst of the Mayor's yes-men on the Council today saying the same kind of politically correct things in spite of their own allegiance to the Mayor's agenda. Talk is cheap.
One of the Star-Telegram's favorite candidates, a very polished speaker who has never before shown an interest in running for Council, was sitting with Danny Scarth, Carter Burdette, and Jungus Jordan at a candidate forum in March at the Ol' South Pancake House. These Council members are the most loyal of the Mayor's supporters on the present Council and are squarely in the pockets of the special interests.
Another, who is a retired Lockheed-Martin executive has been in the race since shortly after Chuck passed away. He steers away from talking about special interest projects, choosing to focus on his management experience and trying to convey the idea that there are no special issues facing the City and District 3 at this time. He has dropped one bit of gas industry propaganda in his talks, however. He says that he is concerned that if we impose more regulation on the gas drillers they may just pull out of Fort Worth and leave us behind. This is a favorite argument of Carter Burdette, Danny Scarth, and the Mayor. Where do you suppose this candidate will cast his lot if he is elected? There are already two cases of gas driller eminent domain activity in residential neighborhoods for the purpose of installing large gas gathering lines in front yards.
In the March 3 City Council meeting after contentious hearings regarding the Greenwood Cemetery/Crestwood pad site and the amendment to the City zoning ordinance Mayor Moncrief said, "We're going to continue to drill in Fort Worth, and the further we get into the core of the city the tougher it's going to get..." Based on the way Moncrief's Council handles these matters, what he means is that the Council will continue to support whatever the industry desires to do regarding pipelines, and the citizens be damned if they think this is improper.
Another candidate is a nice enough fellow who seems very interested in a political career. He began as president of his neighborhood association. He decided to leave that position a few years ago to become president of the Fort Worth League of Neighborhood Associations. He left that position in late 2007 or early 2008. He has served on several of Mayor Moncrief's select committees, and graded the performance of the Mayor at "C" at a neighborhood candidate forum in March. The candidate who sat with Mr. Scarth and the other two council members at the Ol' South Pancake House also gave the mayor a "C" at this meeting. All other candidates gave Mr. Moncrief an "F". In my opinion, anyone who would give Mr. Moncrief a passing grade is someone we don't want representing District 3 after the election on May 9.
I am supporting Gary Hogan for District 3. I'll save my reasons for a later post.
The purpose of this blog is to shine a spotlight on the candidates and explain why there are so many people running for District 3 this year. We'll keep an eye on the money--where it's coming from, how much is being spent by each candidate, and why.
This is important, because in District 3 we were represented for the last 17 years by Councilman Chuck Silcox, a man of the people whose focus was on the needs of his constituents and who did his best to keep downtown special interests out of their pocketbooks.
Since 2003 Chuck had been battling a Mayor who demanded unquestioning loyalty and was very vindictive toward Council members who disagreed with his plans. But Chuck stood up and provided a voice for the people. When Chuck passed away in October of 2008 the Mayor decided not to hold a special election because he didn't want to risk getting another independent thinker on the Council at a time when the Trinity River Vision project and the gas drillers had so much business before the Council.
There might be a demand for a city audit. (There hasn't been one in years.) There might be a fight over the right of drillers' subsidiary pipeline companies to condemn homes and front yards for the purpose of gas gathering pipeline right of way--all for private profit. There might be some resistance to the recent practice of granting generous tax abatements to businesses seeking a handout as a condition for locating here. Without Chuck on the Council the Mayor had a very compliant City Council, so District 3 remains without representation for seven months while the Mayor's agenda proceeds full tilt. The proffered excuse was the cost of a special election.
If the upcoming election didn't have crucial special interest issues at stake one would historically expect the District 3 race to be rather uninteresting as such elections go, but this year there are seven candidates.
To listen to the stump speeches offered by the candidates in public forums, every candidate loved Chuck Silcox and the way he represented the people. And they all promise to follow in Chuck's footsteps. Some talk about how they have "worked with" Chuck in the past. But what would you expect them to say? I can imagine the worst of the Mayor's yes-men on the Council today saying the same kind of politically correct things in spite of their own allegiance to the Mayor's agenda. Talk is cheap.
One of the Star-Telegram's favorite candidates, a very polished speaker who has never before shown an interest in running for Council, was sitting with Danny Scarth, Carter Burdette, and Jungus Jordan at a candidate forum in March at the Ol' South Pancake House. These Council members are the most loyal of the Mayor's supporters on the present Council and are squarely in the pockets of the special interests.
Another, who is a retired Lockheed-Martin executive has been in the race since shortly after Chuck passed away. He steers away from talking about special interest projects, choosing to focus on his management experience and trying to convey the idea that there are no special issues facing the City and District 3 at this time. He has dropped one bit of gas industry propaganda in his talks, however. He says that he is concerned that if we impose more regulation on the gas drillers they may just pull out of Fort Worth and leave us behind. This is a favorite argument of Carter Burdette, Danny Scarth, and the Mayor. Where do you suppose this candidate will cast his lot if he is elected? There are already two cases of gas driller eminent domain activity in residential neighborhoods for the purpose of installing large gas gathering lines in front yards.
In the March 3 City Council meeting after contentious hearings regarding the Greenwood Cemetery/Crestwood pad site and the amendment to the City zoning ordinance Mayor Moncrief said, "We're going to continue to drill in Fort Worth, and the further we get into the core of the city the tougher it's going to get..." Based on the way Moncrief's Council handles these matters, what he means is that the Council will continue to support whatever the industry desires to do regarding pipelines, and the citizens be damned if they think this is improper.
Another candidate is a nice enough fellow who seems very interested in a political career. He began as president of his neighborhood association. He decided to leave that position a few years ago to become president of the Fort Worth League of Neighborhood Associations. He left that position in late 2007 or early 2008. He has served on several of Mayor Moncrief's select committees, and graded the performance of the Mayor at "C" at a neighborhood candidate forum in March. The candidate who sat with Mr. Scarth and the other two council members at the Ol' South Pancake House also gave the mayor a "C" at this meeting. All other candidates gave Mr. Moncrief an "F". In my opinion, anyone who would give Mr. Moncrief a passing grade is someone we don't want representing District 3 after the election on May 9.
I am supporting Gary Hogan for District 3. I'll save my reasons for a later post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
