Fracking Is OK, Says Buried Report From New York State's Health Department

The New American ^ | 04 January 2013 | Bob Adelmann

[VitacoreVision]

The release of a conveniently long-lost report showing that fracking is safe puts New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo in a tight spot: continue to appease environmentalists by delaying further the development of the rich Marcellus Formation under his state, or letting the free market extract those resources and generate thousands of jobs and millions in revenue to the state.

Fracking Is OK, Says Buried Report From New York State's Health Department

The New American
04 January 2013


A report favoring fracking that was buried for nearly a year was given to the New York Times yesterday by a whistleblower who “did not believe it should be kept secret,” according to Danny Hakim. The eight-page analysis summarizes “previous research [done] by the state and others, and concludes that fracking can be done safely.” Specifically, the report says:

By implementing the proposed mitigation measures, the Department expects that human chemical exposures during normal [fracking] operations will be prevented or reduced below levels of significant health concern.

The report went on to say that further study of the risks would be worthless because it would “involve making a large number of assumptions about the many … variables that influence the nature and degree of potential human exposure and toxicity.”

The report puts New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (shown) in a tough spot. On one side are the landowners over the Marcellus Formation in the southwestern parts of the state who have been leasing their land to drilling companies anxious to explore the potential of the formation. On the other are the environmentalists who are concerned about the risks of such exploration and the potential impact on people and the environment.

Cuomo has delayed making a decision on whether to allow fracking for nearly four years while an environmental study was being completed. Back in September Cuomo was about to allow some limited exploring, but at the last minute, he reversed course, ordering another full-scale study of the matter, which would put off making a decision for at least another year.

This pleased Cuomo’s good friend Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an environmental activist whose sister just happens to be Cuomo’s ex-wife. Kennedy said at the time that he was delighted with Cuomo’s continued resistance to landowners and drilling companies who wanted to get started with the drilling:

I’m surprised how long he’s withstood the tide. I’m proud that he’s done that. There’s no other governor who’s just said “let’s hold off.” And he’s under, I can tell you, tremendous pressure by the industry and by others.

With the release of the long-buried report, that pressure is only going to increase. The Marcellus Formation is almost incomprehensibly large, extending nearly 600 miles from the Finger Lakes region of New York south and west into and through western Pennsylvania, down through Maryland and into West Virginia. When the U.S. Geological Survey studied the formation back in 2002, it concluded that, with the then-existing technology, there was 2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) available for recovery. In 2009, it revised its estimate to 262 TCF. Translated into dollars, Marcellus has about $200 billion dollars’ worth of recoverable reserves. And that, according to a study funded by the Marcellus Shale Coalition, translates into 250,000 new jobs. If Cuomo lifts the ban in drilling, Marcellus could create $11.4 billion in economic output and raise $1.4 billion in state and local taxes, according to the Manhattan Institute.

Fracking has already proven to be an important part of the U.S. economy, having created 1.7 million jobs last year alone with an additional 2.5 million jobs expected within the next three years.

The risks that the environmentalists are concerned about and are holding Cuomo hostage over are the risks that the fracking process could possibly pollute aquifers and wells. But according to Ronald Bailey at Reason magazine, the risks are minimal:

If oil and gas production actually resulted in detectable health risks, it would already be apparent. Why? Because something like 75,000 conventional oil and gas wells have been drilled in New York since the late 1800s, and 14,000 of them are still active.

But the environmentalists aren't interested in logic or aren't listening. One of the more boisterous is Frack Free Nation, which notes its opposition on its website with the following declarations, capital letters and exclamation points included:

Criminalize Shale Gas Extraction!

Regulations DO NOT prevent pollution.

Regulations ENABLE POLLUTION!

Regulators are trained and employed to ISSUE PERMITS — for pollution!

Then they asses [sic] monitory [sic!] fines for violations and spills — if we are lucky!!...

Therefore, these permits and associated regulations are CAUSING pollution.

The FACT is that this industry has a HORRIBLE safety record, which has left a toxic legacy everywhere it has gone.

The only way to stop the violations and stop the environmental destruction is by PROHIBITION…

Diatribes by some environmentalists remind one of the advice an old lawyer gave to his son:

If you have a case where the law is clearly on your side, but the facts and justice seem to be against you, urge upon the jury the vast importance of sustaining the law.

On the other hand, if the law is against you, or doubtful, and the facts show that your case is founded in justice, insist that justice be done though the heavens fall.

But, said the young man, how shall I manage a case where both the law and the facts are dead against me?

In that case, talk around it, and the worse it is, the harder you pound the table.

With the release of this conveniently long-lost study, no amount of table pounding is likely to change the conclusion: Fracking is safe, and Cuomo won’t be able to delay the inevitable much longer.


Related News:

Natural Gas — Yours for the Fracking

Wresting natural gas via fracking from tight shale formations a mile underground is one of man’s greatest accomplishments, and one that promises abundant, clean fuel for a century or more.

Natural Gas — the Coming Shale Gale

Natural gas production is now booming, thanks to new methods of obtaining gas from shale stone.

Energy Boom Could Make U.S. Largest Oil Producer by 2020

The growing energy boom in the U.S. could make it the largest global oil producer by the end of the decade, according to a new report.

Unconventional Oil and Gas Industry Created 1.7 Million Jobs This Year

The U.S. oil and natural-gas rush will create a total of 1.7 million jobs this year, according to a new study released Tuesday.

Firewater and Other Urban Fracking Legends

A movie entitled Gasland claims that natural-gas drilling is polluting both water and air in the United States, even causing water to ignite, but we checked the claims.

[BallandPowder]

bump!

[Graewoulf]

” - - - But the environmentalists aren’t interested in logic or aren’t listening.”

Yup. Same with Global Warming, living with your means, and financial stewardship.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Science or politics, can’t have it both ways.

[Chode]

it don't matter, the Homo made us miss the boom cycle anyway...

[RobbyS]

God, this low-life scum that go along with whatever fantasies their supporters believe in. Just so long as they keep funding their campaigns, and keep promoting them to high office. Cuomo is as hollow as a drum, and all he is good for is making the right noises. He has no soul,

[SierraWasp]

I just put a power ping on all of ya!!!

[Ladysforest]

I own a few acres (upstate NY) in the path of the frack. I am fairly certain that my land would be a “producer” because I have seen oily sheen on top of water puddles up there.

I asked a local environmentalist about it years ago, before I bought the land, thinking that perhaps someone had dumped junk up there.

He reassured me by telling me that due to the type of shale in those areas, small amounts of “oil” just naturally found its way to the surface.

Seven acres. No homes for many acres on either side - nothing but state land behind me. IF fracking is allowed, the state will absolutely lease out that land behind me.

I won’t go into the BIG problems with water runoff, etc. that I have which makes my acreage nearly unusable most of the year - but it does make the prospect of a frack lease something that I will consider. As does the fact that the only near neighbors (across the road) are A$$holes extraordinaire.

Since I don’t live out there, I can almost tolerate those neighbors. Whenever we go out there though I feel I must take the dobes AND carry rifles.

If I am offered a frack contract...................

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Cuomo is a legal thug, just as Trumka is an union thug-in-chief. Some of his actions border on not only illegal per se, but criminal. His use of threats to attempt to deny NY citizens their rights is growing, but fortunately, a few courts aren’t buying his mafia-style extortion tactics.

His father was a wacko, mafia protector, but sonny boy is just plain evil. His stint as Secy of Housing and Urban Development (?) was marked by massive corruption and cronyism.

New York sure knows how to pick em.

[Dusty Road]

First let me say I’m not familiar with your area I’m in TX but have been in the oil business for about 40 years.

My first question is do you own the minerals on your land?

If you don’t own the minerals then at best you can only get surface damages if and only if they drill on your place or run a pipeline. there is a chance of them drilling on your place but with that small of acreage it would be a crap shoot. In TX it’s split up in 40 acre units with all those inside the unit splitting royalties depending on acerage owned. As far as a Fracing contract theres no such thing it’s just a part of well completion, the final stage in opening up a zone, you would recieve nothing for that. As far as them producing out from under you again that won’t happen they have to obtain all the mineral rights in that unit before drilling. Again if you don’t own the minerals the chances of you seeing anything is unlikely.

[Ladysforest]

In this area, even people with one acre have been offered leases - IF they live between others who have signed. This happened to my cousin. At this point it is still a bit unclear how the companies will proceed, but prior to this hitting the news a number of years ago, they were quietly going around getting individual leases (5 year) from property owners of all sizes. The early signers on were taking $500. per acre for the five year term (a few as low as $250. per acre), later on property owners were holding out for up to $5000. per acre, and royalties.

I double checked with my attorney three or four years back, and there are no liens on my property for minerals, and he assures me that I have the mineral rights clear.

There have been a few homeowner groups formed up here to deal with fears about being screwed over by the companies. So, I look to those to learn the pitfalls, one of which seems to be greedy homeowner group lawyers. :) I read in their online forums once in awhile to find out what is currently going on. They also air little info-shows on the local network, and I watch those rather than attend the meetings in person.

The companies just about stopped all activity in our area a few years ago, but with the “leaked” report about NY being safe to frack, I expect it should pick up again. While they would obviously prefer larger parcels, many of the big parcels out in the countryside have been split into 10 acres or smaller. Since mine is only seven acres, but is backed by a large piece of state land - which has a huge pond on it - there is a likelihood that I will be approached. Probably the folks on either side of me as well since that is all vacant land too.

I’ve never felt strongly about wanting to lease it, and always figured that I’d cross that bridge if it ever became an issue, but frankly - IF the state land is opened, and the neighbors sign on..............

I don’t expect to become a Beverly Hillbilly, only the large acreage owners have a shot at that, but my little acreage is almost useless most of the year, I have zero intention of building on it, and so I would consider a lease if offered decent terms.