Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

On the Home front: the gas well

March 14, 2014 - John D'Agostino
This is the first of a series of blogs regarding the County Home.

In a recent meeting with VestraCare representatives, Edward Farbenblum, executive vice president, said the gas well is a "liability" to the new owners.

The County Legislature approved the sale of the Chautauqua County Home to the group last month. The sale is expected to be finalized by the end of the calendar year.

Click on the link at right to hear the full conversation.

 
 

Article Comments

(10)
Apr-22-14 4:41 AM

Elected officials should be held personally liable for extreme errors in judgement and costly errors that could have been avoided with research and diligence. Taxpayers do not have bottomless pockets. High taxes are causing everyone to leave the area. The facts should be known so that these mistakes are never repeated.

Captain

Mar-16-14 6:10 PM

If you actually believe it's cheaper to keep the gas well capped and NOT use the free gas to operate the home, just b/c Mr F claims higher insurance premiums would cost more than what the home would save on gas expenses, then you're a bigger fool than I thought.

In the audio, JD personally asks Farbenblum about the gas well, but instead of challenging Mr F's assertion with a simple question, JD chooses not to? It certainly appears, and it's not only my opinion, that JD doesn't even know what the term "investigative reporting" means.

Mar-16-14 4:46 PM

Captain why not move back here and team up with christopher and get all this stuff straightened out? Talk is cheap!!

Captain

Mar-16-14 9:51 AM

Farbenblum contends the gas well is a liability, thus implying he agreed to buy the CCH despite knowing this. Mr F goes on to state it's likely the home will NEVER tap into it b/c active gas wells cause higher insurance premiums?

If free gas eliminates annual expenses associated with gas consumption used to operate the home, I presume this benefit far exceeds higher insurance premiums, therefore, the well IS an asset and NOT a liability, as Mr F wants us to believe. JD could've easily challenged this statement, but for whatever reason, he chose not to.

After further review of what's been reported, and unless proven otherwise, there's no reason to believe anyone failed to comply with all rules & regs in drilling this gas well, however, it does show how people (Mr F) can get away with telling deliberate lies when NO ONE challenges such statements.

DKexpat

Mar-15-14 10:11 PM

Whose name from the county is on the contract for the well? Where is the RFP? Etc. . . .

Niebelj

Mar-15-14 7:53 PM

It is not a case of "getting over"anything! It is about knowing all the facts. Your right, they have agreed to sell the home and so be it but aren't you even curious about whether or not the powers that be at the time acted responsibly.

Captain

Mar-15-14 6:43 PM

If the well is indeed a liability, will the new owner be willing to pay any expenses associated with costs to comply with NYS regs, or will the CCLeg simply absorb the cost? Better yet, is this a deal breaker that lets Mr F walk away, or did the sale price just go down, AGAIN?

Hmm? I believe this is County Atty Steven Abdella's cue, where he steps up and assures us how he diligently researched this matter PRIOR to Edwards & the CCLeg approving the expenditure of OVER $440,000 of taxpayer money on a well that could NEVER be used.

What we have is an embarrassing group of people who dare call themselves representatives.

commentor

Mar-15-14 6:12 PM

It wouldn't be the first time that the dolts running the County didn't know what they were doing. That said they had to get permission from someone to drill. They can't just do that without a permit of some sort. So who were the idiots that gave them permission? Who drilled the well. Not the legislators. Didn't that company have the proper paper work? Given all that IT IS OVER, GET OVER IT. NOTHING CAN BE DONE TO CHANGE IT.

Niebelj

Mar-15-14 12:34 PM

If I am hearing this interview correctly Mr.F is saying that the gas well at the CCH is a liability and that HUD says you cannot have an active gas well on the same property as a nursing facility. If this is the case when the county drilled the gas well were they authorized to do that on the property or were they in some violation of safety regulations. This could explain why the County refused the offer of Cotton Well Drilling to connect the gas well FOR FREE. It could be that they should not have drilled it in the first place at a cost of $400000, could not connect it for reasons of safety, and why they were***** bent on getting rid of the place. I know this sounds like a conspiracy but this has never made sense!

Mar-15-14 7:48 AM

Huh?

This was far from a full discussion on the gas well. Why has this paper failed to do its job in reporting real news, by investigating why this well was drilled in the first place? Why did the County use taxpayer money, to the tune of almost half a million dollars, for a well that has never been connected?

Now if HUD rules state that a gas well is a liability so close to a nursing home, why did our legislators fail to know this when they authorized the drilling...using our money?

Failure once again of this paper to ask any real questions or investigate the drilling of this well....and the total waste of our money.

Wonder if you were trying to say our County officials are complete idiots for drilling a well costing us half a million dollars ..that was never connected...and is now considered a liability?

I also hope this information is passed on to those who advocate "fracking". If a vertical well is a liability wonder what a huge fracking well pad would be conside

 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web
 
 

Blog Links