New York's Governor Cuomo and DEC Commissioner Martens should be commended for their deliberative efforts to regulate high volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking) thus far in our state, but the time has come for both men to lead.
Fracking in its current form shouldn't be permitted, and nibbling around its edges won't change that -- as evidence of its unintended consequences grow, so do the uncertainties in our ability to prevent them.
Whether it's the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recent findings linking it to groundwater contamination, the inadequate accounting of its costs, or the absence of a framework to adequately indemnify those adversely affected, fracking's risks to the public remain too high -- and as if that isn't enough, add to this list the specter of earthquakes.
Squishy slogans like "it's safe" won't ensure safety, and injecting known carcinogens and other toxic compounds into the ground (and their inefficient recovery) isn't compatible with prosperity -- if by prosperity we mean living for something more than today.
All ventures present risks; misadventures aren't worth taking.
Continuing to revise DEC's Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement under the pretext that fracking will eventually be permitted here is no longer tenable -- that peg no longer fits the hole, assuming it ever did.
If there is to be more revision it must now proceed under a very different guiding principle, one that bears the heavier burden of demonstrable proof -- that fracking in its current form is even capable of paying for itself.
Fidelity to that principle requires that people and communities won't be treated as some business expense, to be written off for shareholders at the annual stockholder's meeting. It requires that people are adequately protected in the way that decent people understand.
But "adequately protected" is squishy too, yet a solid foundation from our DEC is nearby:
In no event shall the State of New York, its agencies or authorities, employees, officers or agents be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, incidental, special, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data, or profits, arising out of or in any way connected with the use or performance of this web site, or for any information, software, products, services, or graphics obtained through this web site, or otherwise arising out of the use of this web site, whether based on contract, tort, strict liability, or otherwise, even if the State of New York, its agencies or authorities, employees, officers or agents have been advised of the possibility of damages.
A modest revision would be a good start:
In no event shall the State of New York, gas companies, their agencies or authorities, employees, officers or agents avoid liability for any direct, indirect, punitive, incidental, special, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever including, without limitation, damages for loss of use of property or to the health of family members, arising out of or in any way connected with High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing, regardless of any arrangements the State of New York, gas companies or their agencies or authorities, employees, officers or agents may have already made or may attempt to make otherwise.
Follow Dave Colavito on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Dave Colavito
Guess we'll all realize what a mistake we made when we turn on our taps, and nothing comes out.
d
As for okiemon assertion - since the paper does not say what he wants, the only possible reason in politics!
Can't possibly believe natural gas drilling companies using fracking tend to drill where they were past successes and in PA alone there are literally thousands of abandon wells.
That why the Duke study recommended more testing before fracking to establish a base line and testing during fracking and after fracking.
It's conceivable because of the 150+ years legacy of past drilling companies abuse these regions may not be suitable for fracking.
Sierra Club takes $26 million from Chesapeake Energy over the last four years to fight against coal. CE is the largest producer of natural gas .....oh boy
In the interim,
lets force the companies to include chemical tags that will identify any contamination that does occur.
What form of fracking should we permit? I recommend the follow:
As the EPA and the Obama adminstration experts contend, there are a few documented cases of contaminated drinking water ... but not many cases. Let's learn from those few cases and address the problem. Last May, Lisa Jackson said she was "not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water". Findings of contamination are only recent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQyTyKXAjV4
The party line of "there hasn't been a documented case of water contamination from fracking" is like saying "there's never been a documented case of vehicular accidents from faulty brakes" -- after all, faulty brakes can't cause accidents, unless they're installed in vehicles. It's the entire fracking process, and industry loves to parse out the frack from everything else required.
As to what form should we permit? Well, let's start by asking if we should be tapping into any new source of fossil fuels w/o a credible national energy policy (we're still waiting, for years), and whether industry will provide full and timely compensation for any legitimate claim of adverse impacts related to fracking.
From there I'd say, you've got my attention -- I don't ride my horse to work -- then show me the frack job that doesn't rely on injecting unrecoverable toxic compounds; then we'll talk.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-water_n_844662.html
I read the Duke Report and I agree with their conclusion of testing before fracking to establish a base line testing during fracking and testing after fracking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-water_n_844662.html
Imagine over 180,000 oil & natural gas wells dug before they even started keeping track of their locations in PA alone!
ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/OGdSGEISFull.pdf
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/FractListing.pdf
http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Documents
SLB%20WV%20Fracture%20Solutions.pdf
Give me a break. You can't appropriate mineral rights. Good luck trying.
Let's revisit this issue in 3-4 years shall we? I guarantee you NY state will be fracking by then.
Believe me or not ---- but the legal system will demonstrate this to you. A ban on fracking in NY state will be contested by the landowners who want to make money by fracking their land. And they will win, because mineral rights have a long and strong tradition in this country.
You really think the same legal system that allows mountain top removal for coal mining is going to support a ban on fracking? Dream on.
Yes, we can regulate mining companies.
Obama made abundantly clear that an "all of the above" energy policy is the core of his administration. Translation - ban on fracking --- not going to happen.
And this doesn't address the fact that the projections for gas production in the Marcellus shale play have plummetted -- so much that gas companies are already pulling out of a number of leases here.
The solution for fracking is not to do it.
It's amazing how much Anti-Frackers are like Climate Change deniers.
They will ignore over 400,000 successful fracked wells and concentrate on the handful of mistakes just like a Climate Change Denier will lock on 1 or 2 experts that say their is no problem with climate change and when they are proven wrong they will call it flawed science!
Worse yet Climate Change Deniers get most of their information from talking heads from a network called FOX while Anti-Frackers get their information from a Producer named FOX!
They are the flip side of the same coin - scientifically illiterate and politically motivated always a bad mix!
To my knowledge there's never been a comprehensive human-health-effects study on the impacts of fracking -- that's why EPA's first of a kind study is being conducted. So let's see if that "handful" remains in one hand -- as the saying goes, "it's amazing what you can find, when you look".