PA DEP Denies Road Permit for PGE Shale Pad in Loyalsock Forest
Last December, MDN told you that three anti-shale drilling groups—the PA Council of Trout Unlimited, the Keystone Trails Association, and the Responsible Drilling Alliance—requested the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) hold a hearing on the Chapter 105 permit requested for a 3.9-mile shale gas access road and staging area proposed by Pennsylvania General Energy (PGE) in the Loyalsock State Forest (see PA Antis Want DEP Hearing on 3.9-Mile Rd to Shale Pad in Loyalsock). The antis kept up the pressure. They squawked a lot during a DEP virtual public hearing in February (see Antis Flood PA DEP Hearing Against Drilling in Loyalsock Forest). The hearing focused on the Chapter 105 water-quality permit for PGE’s proposal to construct an access road. Congratulations to the crazies: They succeeded. Read More “PA DEP Denies Road Permit for PGE Shale Pad in Loyalsock Forest”
The Pennsylvania Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has banned the spreading of conventional oil and gas brine for any purpose on its over 6,500 miles of roads in PA State Forests. A majority of those roads are dirt and gravel. The ban also applies to all State Park roads (although most of those roads are paved and don’t need water for dust suppression, so it’s an empty gesture).
Olympus Energy (formerly Huntley & Huntley) drills in the Greater Pittsburgh region, in Allegheny and Westmoreland counties. The company plans to drill a series of new wells (and well pad) in Washington Township in Westmoreland County. However, there’s a snag. Residents along a proposed road accessing the site don’t want the truck traffic on their narrow (18-foot-wide) road. Olympus doesn’t want to use an alternate route due to a sharp turn. Someone else proposed building a new access road, but it would cross a tributary that flows into the Beaver Run Reservoir (lots of red tape). The town is planning a couple of workshop meetings to figure out a solution.
The Route 2 | I-68 Authority in West Virginia wants to expand Route 2 to four lanes from Parkersburg, WV to Chester, WV, and to extend Interstate 68 from I-79 near Morgantown, WV westward to WV Route 2 along the Ohio River Valley, some 73 miles (see 
Once again the issue of whether or not to use conventional (not shale) wastewater and its byproducts is in the news. The issue has long been debated in Pennsylvania. Earlier this week we brought you news from a recent study that finds more studies should be done on the issue of using brine wastewater to treat dusty roads in PA (see 
Researchers at Penn State evaluated eight oil and gas wastewaters (i.e. brines), waste soybean oil, and commercial dust suppressants, comparing them to see how well they controlled particle pollution on simulated patches of road. If you believe the headlines about the study, you would believe wastewater is “not usually the best option” for treating dusty roads in PA. If you read the research study itself, you come to the conclusion the study draws no such conclusion.
The shale industry often gets a bad reputation for poor conditions along roadways where they operate–especially in West Virginia. In April, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, who is pro-coal (because much of his personal fortune comes from coal), took a swipe at shale drillers claiming shale is responsible for the poor condition of roadways in the Mountain State (see 
In April, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, who is pro-coal (because much of his personal fortune comes from coal), took a swipe at shale drillers claiming shale is responsible for the poor condition of roadways in the Mountain State (see 
A bill under active consideration in the Pennsylvania Senate would remove the PA Dept. of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) prohibition against using brine from conventional oil and gas wells on PA’s roadways (see 
The mayor of Bloomingdale, OH, in Jefferson County, wants Ascent Resources to “come to the table for more fair arrangements on leases, road use agreements and fixing already-damaged roads.” The mayor and the village council are threatening to sue Ascent if they don’t “come to the table.” In other words, pay up or else. What has Ascent done to anger the mayor and village? Primarily the issue involves RUMAs–road use maintenance agreements. Some roads the village says Ascent uses have been damaged and the village wants them fixed. They also want a new agreement in place to pay for more fixes in the future. The mayor also says Ascent is using pressure tactics in leasing land from village residents. Some one-third of the village is now leased. These problems have been going on for about a year now, and the situation seems to be coming to a head…