Say No to SEPCO
By Ralph Kisberg
Southwestern Energy Production Company (SEPCO) recently applied to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) to renew two previously approved - but never used - water withdrawals from the Lycoming Creek. One renewal document submitted, "Lycoming Creek Bodines Withdrawal Renewal," was simply dated March 2013. A similar document submitted for SEPCO's Ralston Withdrawal was dated April 2013. Both documents included the following in the Executive Summary:
SRBC granted approval for surface water withdrawals from Lycoming Creek near Bodines (or Ralston) in December 2009. At present, SEPCO has not initiated withdrawals from Lycoming Creek. State and local regulatory restrictions pertaining to SEPCO's leased acreage near the Withdrawal have led to a de facto moratorium on SEPCO's local exploration and production (E&P). Therefore, SEPCO's local demand for water has been delayed, and SEPCO has not initiated withdrawals. However, recent developments indicate that some of the restrictions have been resolved and conditions are more conducive to E&P. As such, SEPCO plans to proceed with E&P activities and therefore has a renewed demand for water from the approved Withdrawal. To this end, SEPCO has finalized the design and permitting of the intake and has begun site construction activities. SEPCO intends to initiate withdrawals by early
May 2013.
 | |
Construction on the Ralston Water Withdrawal IMAGE: Ralph Kisberg
|
These withdrawals represent the fourth and fifth gas-related surface withdrawals from Lycoming Creek. SEPCO's applications also conveniently misidentify the creek's water quality classification as merely cold water fishery, instead of the creek's actual and more accurate classification in this area: exceptional value cold water fishery. One must also realize that these water withdrawal stations are within spitting distance of the Clarence Moore lands of the Loyalsock State Forest; that's important to know since SEPCO is the lessee of the other fifty percent of the oil and gas rights of the Clarence Moore lands that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation does not own.
SEPCO's statement, "restrictions have been resolved," seems particularly disingenuous, given the April 4 stakeholders meeting at the Loyalsock State Forest Headquarters near Laporte, Sullivan County, where DCNR representatives led by Secretary Allan stated that negotiations on surface use were "not underway now." Allan also answered in regard to an inquiry as to who are the two owners of the subsurface rights that "we believe Southwestern has a lease, but not ownership."
These statements by DCNR are consistent with what was revealed in documents obtained though a Right to Know Law request regarding development of the Clarence Moore tracts in which there were no communications directly with SEPCO. Over all, there was little mention
of SEPCO except in regard to what was repeated at the April 4 meeting.
There, the DCNR was asked, "Can Anadarko drill without approval of the other leaseholder?"
 | |
A sign marks SEPCO's Ralston Water Withdrawal.
IMAGE: Ralph Kisberg
|
The DCNR representative
replied that "(I, we) cannot
believe that we would go through
the process and create
agreement... without that
agreement."
SEPCO's Ralston Water
Withdrawal facility appeared to
be almost finished last week.
Its completion leaves yet another
large scar along PA Route 14, a
once premier scenic highway
that is rapidly becoming an
industrial corridor.
Though SEPCO's Ralston facility appears almost complete, the permit renewals apparently are not. SEPCO's renewal applications are not scheduled for approval at the SRBC's next business meeting in June, so will most likely be scheduled for approval at the SRBC's September business meeting. Before starting to withdraw water, SEPCO will also need water obstruction and
encroachment permits from the Pennsylvania DEP; the company has not yet applied for those permits.
The lack of final approval for the renewal applications provides an opportunity for the public to speak up: the SRBC is currently accepting comment on SEPCO's applications. Make your voice heard!
To comment on the proposed Bodines withdrawal, go to:
http://www.srbc.net/wrp/Details.aspx?ID=8780&num=2013-031#
To comment on the proposed Ralston withdrawal, go to:
http://www.srbc.net/wrp/Details.aspx?ID=8788&num=2013-034
| 
