Will NY state lands remain "forever wild"?

[tuckersdaddy]

Yes, there is always a problem when one property owner's use of his land impacts others. And it is a legitimate concern. Our whole system of zoning laws deal with that sort of thing because there are real effects from one neighbor to another. Effects such as my example of a neighbor creating a dump just over the lot-line, and rats and bugs and disease and smells and filth leaching into drinking water. Should the homeowner have no recourse? I think that is the issue at stake with this fracking topic. When does a homeowner have a legitimate stake in the land uses of others? Is it determined by how much money is to be made? Is it determined by how many jobs that can be created? Is it determined by some notion of energy independence? I think it is an issue of health first, collateral property damage second, and then maybe the other considerations can be factored in.

 

My first concern is that I don't believe that there should be any secrecy about this toxic soup that they use when the liklihood exists for accidental pollution of area resources. They want it to be a secret, then they should be denied its use ..... period. Once the nature of this stuff is disclosed it should be studied to disclose what impacts could be expected on the resources of adjoining properties. That should include casual use with no incidents, as well as with spills and other accidents. If those impacts are severe, the use should be denied. The recipe should be closely monitored to ensure that it never changes without the same extensive studies being performed. If they do tamper with the formula without re-examination, the well should be denied and the company cited.

 

It's probably plain that I am on the side of the property owner. I think there is and always has been way too much rough-shod treatment of landowners by the wealthy trying to get wealthier. It is situations like these that make me say, whoa there, let's slow down a bit. Let's figure out the truth of all this. It's not about money or jobs or energy independence, but simply about right and wrong treatment of one neighbor by another. 

An environmental impact study is a fair request, as is a posted bond to cover future cleanup costs. A proprietary company product is not uncommon in any industry. just read the back of any food container, ' and other natural ingredients'. nature produces some of the most toxic substances known to man, but we blissfully consume them everyday. if the proprietary component of frack fluid is of concern this would be revealed in an impact study. good idea. thats how decisions on this matter should be made, not the emotional drama that most anti fracking groups use as a tactic to move their agenda.

    At the local level (within a township) the residents should be able to make the decisions that affect them and their views, but should not affect how my town makes its decisions. I respect the fact that a gas well will never be put in the commons in ithaca, but people in ithaca have no business telling the people in lets say the town of lisle, what they can or cannot do with their land. Its not the wealthy that bother me, their motives are always the same, black and white, return on investment, and can be delt with in that way. Its the special interest groups that annoy me. They come in and attempt to make a decision for me thats in my best interest, i think im old enough and hopefully gained enough wisdom through the years to make up my own mind as to whats best for me and my family. 

[tuckersdaddy]

About the Iraq oil field contracts, despite them the price of oil barrels didn't go down they instead hit record high prices. Is there something I am missing?

 

Yep there is. We were not in either gulf war to liberate oil, we were there to liberate people. Now if the busch administration (just pick one) had made it a policy of 'now we are here lets take the oil' we would have been no better as a nation then sadaam. stability in the middle east dose play a huge roll in oil prices throughout the world,( stabilization is why we were there)  and the constant instability makes the market very susceptible to huge price swings spurred on by the speculators, not supply and demand. in general the us energy policy is a disaster waiting to happen (i believe we havent seen the worst of it yet). the current inabilities of our refiners to efficiently refine the tar out of the middle east, (most of our refineries were built 35+ years ago based on sweet crued), has caused us to buy finished not raw product, and limits us to the more expensive sweet crued. the refiners are not allowed by policy to build new refineries to process the lower grade oil, russia and china have. the energy policy is not allowing us to get away from an oil based program. no nuclear, regulation out of existence of coal plants,  no new and the reduction of hydro electric, and what brought us to this thread, no drilling/fracking. this train of thought that started with the carter administration, pushes us to use sources that are not ready to take over, such as solar, wind, energy cells (hydrogen). at this point it has caused us to barely maintain (at increased cost) status quo much less expand and grow. the technology will get there and is making leaps and bounds everyday, but will there be anything left when it does. 

[NFA-ADK]

Bad Idea, plain and simple.  Putting that much chemicals and wasting that much water for fuel is not good.  And it requires a lot of water...  JMO

[Doc]

An environmental impact study is a fair request, as is a posted bond to cover future cleanup costs. A proprietary company product is not uncommon in any industry. just read the back of any food container, ' and other natural ingredients'. nature produces some of the most toxic substances known to man, but we blissfully consume them everyday. if the proprietary component of frack fluid is of concern this would be revealed in an impact study. good idea. thats how decisions on this matter should be made, not the emotional drama that most anti fracking groups use as a tactic to move their agenda.

    At the local level (within a township) the residents should be able to make the decisions that affect them and their views, but should not affect how my town makes its decisions. I respect the fact that a gas well will never be put in the commons in ithaca, but people in ithaca have no business telling the people in lets say the town of lisle, what they can or cannot do with their land. Its not the wealthy that bother me, their motives are always the same, black and white, return on investment, and can be delt with in that way. Its the special interest groups that annoy me. They come in and attempt to make a decision for me thats in my best interest, i think im old enough and hopefully gained enough wisdom through the years to make up my own mind as to whats best for me and my family. 

I am happy that you can see this issue in such a black and white fashion. I am envious that you have the scientific knowledge and background to be able to understand all the intricacies of pumping hazardous waste into the ground and apparently the exact knowledge of what happens when those accidental mishaps occur. As for myself, I am not blessed with that kind of boundless knowledge, and if there are people in this world that want to share their little pieces of knowledge with me about potential dangers of this corporate process, I guess I have no problem with them doing that no matter where they are from. Frankly, I do have to rely on a variety of opinions and facts from a variety of different people. No, I really don't see it quite as black and white as you do. Unlike you, I do have trouble making up my my own mind with most of the more pertanent and crucial facts being deliberately hidden from the public. This idea of using a secret sauce is fine when dealing with a can of soup. I can either buy it or not. But when someone is using a "secret sauce" in huge amounts with the potential of area wide contamination, then I hold them to a little more open and public disclosure before I can decide if I'm really for it. They don't want to be forthcoming with all of the facts, then I guess I am within my rights to withold my support and perhaps even dig in my heels a bit. I do have a problem with blindly issueing a blanket endorsement of the process when they refuse to disclose what the ingredients of the process are. So if someone from Ithaca or wherever wants to try to fill in some of the blanks I'll thank them rather than damning them for trying to help.

 

I guess I am a bit of a hard-sell, and when it comes to corporate profit motives, I do expect more than just a little openess. I look at the opposition and continually ask the question (without answer), "What are their motives for lying"? It's a simple question, and yet there never is any answer. Motives abound for the gas companies who stand to make huge profits from the process. But when I ask what the motives are for opposing people to lie about what they see, experience or reason out, there is only dead silence. To me that all goes to credibility. The gas companies are not making themselves any more credible when they cloak the process in secrecy. If they are forced to use toxins in their process, I would expect as a bare minimum, some explanation of what those toxins are and why such stuff does the job better than more inert and harmless ingredients. I think its a discussion that needs to take place before level headed people of the community should be expected to give a go ahead. Really .... I need something more than a simple, "Trust me". I mean it's not like we have not been environmentally burnt before in the name of corporate profits.

[tuckersdaddy]

Let me explain the black and white. corporations are in business to make money. not for the greater whole, not to save the planet, to make money. one more time, to make money period. When dealing with a corporation this is a good piece of info to know. they deal strictly in rewards versus risk. if the rewards are too low, or the risk is too high, they will not proceed. no emotion, no drama, strictly dollars and cents. let me give you an example outside of  gas drilling to explain:

 

a local town recently had a proposal to reopen a dirt track with in the town. the town had no ordnance before the proposal to keep it from opening so this is what they did.

1st they required the track to be paved (increasing startup costs)

2nd required the access roads to be widened and paved (increasing startup costs)

3rd instituted a 7:30 curfew (restricting hours of operation)

4th instituted a noise ordinance (limiting what type of cars could compete)

5th required all food and souvenirs vendors to be from the town (cutting the profits of the operator)

By doing this investor claimed start up costs would increase from $100,000 to $2.5 million, while cutting profits by 2/3. he retracted his proposal and went his mary way.  

 

now if you apply this same theory to the gas companies you can control their actions  by controlling what has to be put in financially, as in relation to the rewards on the back end. As i have said before if you make them put in cleanup costs up front, which can be determined by the enviro impact study you requested, you just changed the risk/rewards balance causing the company to at minimum change their methods to reduce the enviro risk or completely backing out of the venture if they feel they have no chance of recovering the up front money. This method is already be used in PA as to respect to road conditions. the gas companies were required to maintain the roads in some areas to a level that exceeded the condition before work started. the response of the companies was to keep an asphalt company on call to keep them in compliance of the town ordinance.  simple black and white, the higher the cost, or the lower the reward, the less of a chance of drilling or better, tighter controls on the operations.

Now everyone in new york should understand this theory, the more restrictions you put on a business and the more taxes you apply to the business, the greater chance of them packing their bags and leaving. just dont change your mind at a later date, it will cost billions in incentives to come back with little to no control over the process.     

 

[tuckersdaddy]

Bad Idea, plain and simple.  Putting that much chemicals and wasting that much water for fuel is not good.  And it requires a lot of water...  JMO

 

The water use issue has been a recurring problem with fracking since it started, and your concern about the volume used along with disposal of the used water has been voiced by many and this is how the industry reacted....http://wnbf.com/new-pennsylvania-plant-cleans-frack-water/

[Doc]

Let me explain the black and white. corporations are in business to make money. not for the greater whole, not to save the planet, to make money. one more time, to make money period. When dealing with a corporation this is a good piece of info to know. they deal strictly in rewards versus risk. if the rewards are too low, or the risk is too high, they will not proceed. no emotion, no drama, strictly dollars and cents. let me give you an example outside of  gas drilling to explain:

    

Yes and those are all good reasons to watch them like a hawk, and not blindly and automatically buy into any encouragements and sweet talk that they and their Madison Avenue associates may slick up and send your way. That is exactly what I meant when I said that I can understand where their motives lie for shading the truth a bit. They need public buy-in and will say or do whatever it takes to get that. It is known as the profit motive, a very positive driver for  successful business growth. It is a needed incentive, but requires careful scrutiny by those individuals or societies that are affected by their actions.

 

We understand corporate motives, and while it gets to sound like a broken record, since it hasn't yet been answered, I will once again ask what the suspected motives are for those that are opposed. I know, it is an inconvenient question, but before we call all those people liars, I have to ask about why we suspect that they are lying about what they claim they see, smell, and have experienced. What motive do they have to be dishonest?

[tuckersdaddy]

Yes and those are all good reasons to watch them like a hawk, and not blindly and automatically buy into any encouragements and sweet talk that they and their Madison Avenue associates may slick up and send your way. That is exactly what I meant when I said that I can understand where their motives lie for shading the truth a bit. They need public buy-in and will say or do whatever it takes to get that. It is known as the profit motive, a very positive driver for  successful business growth. It is a needed incentive, but requires careful scrutiny by those individuals or societies that are affected by their actions.

 

We understand corporate motives, and while it gets to sound like a broken record, since it hasn't yet been answered, I will once again ask what the suspected motives are for those that are opposed. I know, it is an inconvenient question, but before we call all those people liars, I have to ask about why we suspect that they are lying about what they claim they see, smell, and have experienced. What motive do they have to be dishonest?

 

I touched on some of the reasons anti's take the stand they do in post #36. Why would a french filmmaker come here to make an anti-fracking film? has clear cutting the rain forrest become too passe? there is money to be had as an anti fracker as well. i cant tell you why each person is against fracking, but if you ask 100 of them, ill bet 95 cant even tell you what fracking is. and thats why its tough for me to believe what comes out of there camp. I like hard facts when making decision, and thats whats missing out of the anti argument. its all emotion no facts with one exception, there will be a lot of truck traffic. Every time there is a concern or question the gas companies are correcting it. i have yet to find one valid claim where the gas companies have created a problem, then turned tail and said oh well your problem. it would be bad for business.  Road rebuilding, frack water treatment plants, replanting of right aways these are things that that the gas companies do to make sure the residents are affected as little as possible, leaving the area better than they found it. these companies have a well documented track record available for your viewing, and they pay for what they harvest. if anyone can come up with hard facts disputing this i will listen, its just the antis have yet to do it. and as i stated in my first post, with the drop in natural gas prices, and gas friendlier states welcoming them in the risk reward factor for NY is quickly waning, and with every delay imposed the opportunity diminishes greatly, ultimately giving the antis the 'win', leaving ny'ers in the stale stinking economic environment we find ourselves living everyday with no foreseeable end.

[Ford]

^{"ill bet 95 cant even tell you what fracking is. and thats why its tough for me to believe what comes out of there camp"}

 

^{I would agree with that statement. But I have what might be a stupid nagging question that bothers me. Is fracking safe, or not? Or it varies? Thats it, and the bottom line right?}

[Doc]

there is money to be had as an anti fracker as well.

I would like to see that statement documented. I am sitting here trying to figure out just who is paying people to lie about their experiences and eye-witness observations. It doesn't sound likely.

 

Why would a french filmmaker come here to make an anti-fracking film?

It could be that he is as curious as I am about how anyone can so casually accept the use of toxins in a wide-spread public fashion without trying to drag every bit of the truth out of the situation first. But the even bigger question is exactly who is it that is paying money to keep people from enjoying all these supposed benefits? What does anyone gain if they are not genuinely convinced that this is a catastrophe waiting to happen? Do we have a plot by the oil cartels .... lol. Where is the motive?

 

i cant tell you why each person is against fracking, but if you ask 100 of them, ill bet 95 cant even tell you what fracking is.

And yet those enlightened people who support fracking are experts on the subject.....lol. The fact is that neither side has an adequate understanding of what is really being talked about here, or the potential consequences that may be at stake. And that's precisely why both sides have to be listened to  .... carefully. So far you have the gas companies feeding all the carefully filtered info on the science involved, and you have a group of people who have heard or experienced some anomolies that seem to run counter to what the gas companies are feeding us. You also have some large quantities of admitted toxic elements involved in the process which should always raise red flags.

 

It sounds to me like what is needed is as much data and info as possible on the subject because being wrong on this issue has the potential for permanent and severe damage to the environment and even people's lives. And yes, anecdotal evidence is just as credible as theoretical calculations and Madison Avenue razzle-dazzle. Perhaps other states may feel that their environment is for sale. They may find financial benefit in rushing headlong into all of this without adequate investigation. Perhaps they will provide the labratory that demonstrates that our prudent path was the right path.

 

I don't know, we obviously have little common ground on this discussion. I am still more willing to err on the side of caution until I am convinced that there is no risk. You are more willing to accept the gas company's hype. And the truth of the issue is probably somewhere between.

[WNYBuckHunter]

The water use issue has been a recurring problem with fracking since it started, and your concern about the volume used along with disposal of the used water has been voiced by many and this is how the industry reacted....http://wnbf.com/new-pennsylvania-plant-cleans-frack-water/

 

Anyone that thinks fracking is a waste of water, and that we shouldnt be using it in the production of fuel, should look into the production of corn based ethanol and the water consumption for that.

[Doc]

Anyone that thinks fracking is a waste of water, and that we shouldnt be using it in the production of fuel, should look into the production of corn based ethanol and the water consumption for that.

Yes, another pipe-dream that we have been sold as the salvation of our energy future. You know, if all the costs were to be taken into account including the ripple effects in our food costs, I would not be surprised if the most expensive petro isn't a damned sight cheaper. But all that has been justified also and even crammed down our throats by the government. And let's not forget those giant whirly-gigs that they have plopped all over the hills. Those came with a whole lot of stories and promises also. Results that only come by way of very hefty  government subsidies (code for our tax dollars). There's a lot of people getting very wealthy off our gas afflictions. They have all learned how to work the system with various schemes and gimmicks.

[tuckersdaddy]

Bottom line... our society is energy hungry. everything we do in our lives requires energy. the demand is growing at astronomical figures. The fed government is making it harder for traditional energy producers to produce. The new 'green' technology is not advanced enough yet to fill the demand. And we end up emptying our wallets just to survive. Natural gas is the cleanest, most abundant energy source available to bridge the gap.  clean electricity, clean heat, clean automobiles. as long as the anti folk are willing to understand that energy prices will continue to rapidly rise, and are willing to pay for it without complaint, then so be it. but dont come whining when NYSEG doubles your rates, when it $1500 to fill your fuel oil tank, gasoline is $7.50 a gallon, and everything delivered has a 5% fuel surcharge. This will rest solely on the shoulders of those who shape the energy policy, by legislation or by protest. 

[Doc]

Sounds like utopia doesn't it? Cheap fuel ..... damn the consequences.

[mike rossi]

^{"ill bet 95 cant even tell you what fracking is. and thats why its tough for me to believe what comes out of there camp"}

 

^{I would agree with that statement. But I have what might be a stupid nagging question that bothers me. Is fracking safe, or not? Or it varies? Thats it, and the bottom line right?}

Public ignorance benefits industry, not science,  every time, . If that statement is false, give me just one example otherwise... 

Edited April 23, 2013 by mike rossi

[tuckersdaddy]

Sounds like utopia doesn't it? Cheap fuel ..... damn the consequences.

 

heat the house or feed the kids.......

fill the gas tank or buy groceries......

 

I'm glad you wont have to make these decisions......

but many do as will more as energy prices increase. 

[Doc]

Ha-ha ... The one thing that I have noticed is that no matter how desparate the financial situation, the poor always seem to have enough money to pay for the dish TV, the cigarettes, and the gas for the car. But our craving for a crisis always has us grasping at foolish, irresponsible and sometimes dangerous solutions.

 

Look, I am as much in favor of cheap local fuel as anyone, I just argue over what kinds of hazards we should be expected and willing to gamble with to get it. For some gas is God, and consequences be damned. I just like to take a little more cautious approach than that.

 

 

[sits in trees]

Getting back to the OP's question, theres one thing I can say for sure, we as sportsman and women should do everything to help keep our state lands and open space forever wild, because once they are dozed and developed that will be the way they will stay, gone forever.

And the people of power who wanna doze and develop state lands will do so at no benefit to us, but the rewards to themselves will be enormous. I seen way too many developments and sports complexes etc etc being shoved down the throats of Americans with the excuse of "ooohhh it will create jobs" or the one I really like is the "oooohhh it will keep taxes down". Kinda funny when you look at the most developed areas of our country have the highest taxes.

And these people of power who wanna checkerboard our wilderness with gas and oil pipes and huge fans and who knows what next have a whole media empire out there just feeding and washing our brains on the good it will do for the country and how it will even be patriotic to have big oil run a 40in diameter pipe thru your backyard and right up yer arse. These people of power spend the money to get the right people elected for their cause and create people who we should fear, boogie men, they go as far as to call them socialists and communist for not agreeing with them.

It's kinda funny how environmentalists have turned into some evil green 3 headed monsters sent here by Europeans to destroy America or how big oil will tell us we wont have to see our young men die in the middle east anymore if we agree with them and let them run their pipelines, when in fact its because of big oil we are in the middle east in the first place . 

Well all I know is if these people get their way we will surely end up with less open space, less wilderness, less places to hunt and we will be the ones who have been played the fool....sorry if that makes me a socialist for not agreeing with big business and special interests than so be it.

Im just not going to be sold on this shale gas and pipeline thing so easy. 

[SteveB]

If NYS wanted a huge boost to it's income and benefit our ecosystems and wildlife, they would allow sustainable selective logging

to our state lands and parks.

Done correctly, it would be a great benefit to much of the forest and to wild life.

Allow more diversity and be a major source of income which could be used to add more land when it becomes available.

 

Walk a section of woods owned by companies such as Cotton Hanlon or Gutchiss Lumber.

Then walk one of the dying, devoid of diversity pine forest state lands.

See the difference.

 

 

[mike rossi]

If NYS wanted a huge boost to it's income and benefit our ecosystems and wildlife, they would allow sustainable selective logging

to our state lands and parks.

Done correctly, it would be a great benefit to much of the forest and to wild life.

Allow more diversity and be a major source of income which could be used to add more land when it becomes available.

 

Walk a section of woods owned by companies such as Cotton Hanlon or Gutchiss Lumber.

Then walk one of the dying, devoid of diversity pine forest state lands.

See the difference.

Logging is allowed on many public lands. So is grazing and sharecropping. It is done with sealed bids. Problem is not with the lands with marketable timber or good soil... It is the majority of the other public lands that need to be managed with the conservation fund and associated matching federal funds - that's what those funds are for... However somebody decided the CF should be invested in the STIP and the matching federal grants are not wanted...

 

I don't know if the pine monocultures you are talking about are a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is it a case of low value timber resulting from it maturing into a climax stage (pine?) that nobody will bid on?  Or is it the product of the mistake made decades ago where the government planted non native (norwiegen pine?) monocultures after logging native trees on state forests? I guess they thought the open, park-like atmosphere of norwiegen pine plantations would attract people ????  Or was it, trees are trees, animals don't know the difference.... If they let it regenerate naturally, it would sustain harvest indefinetly, yet they introduced the pine, in a monoculture no less, - which is not only poor habitat but apparently not marketable for lumber??? Plenty of money in the CF to mitigate those pine plantations...

Edited April 24, 2013 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

Ha-ha ... The one thing that I have noticed is that no matter how desparate the financial situation, the poor always seem to have enough money to pay for the dish TV, the cigarettes, and the gas for the car. But our craving for a crisis always has us grasping at foolish, irresponsible and sometimes dangerous solutions.

 

Look, I am as much in favor of cheap local fuel as anyone, I just argue over what kinds of hazards we should be expected and willing to gamble with to get it. For some gas is God, and consequences be damned. I just like to take a little more cautious approach than that.

Doc you are being very generous with the assumption this will lower gas prices.

 

Where is the proof? A lot of pro-fracking economic arguments, but no numbers or indices.

 

Qualify gas, are you talking methane natural gas or gasoline/diesel? There is no movement to convert vehicles to methane, so why are gasoline/diesel prices relevant? Does the USA even buy methane from the middle east?

 

The Chinese have already bought into large energy companies, like Chesapeake Energy. Does this matter?

 

I don't know how true it is, but one source claims that Canadian Natural Gas produced by fracking is being exported to China & India and has not benefited the average Canadian citizen. If the USA exports surplus methane, is the suggested benefit to US citizens diminished?

[SteveB]

I don't know if the pine monocultures you are talking about are a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is it a case of low value timber resulting from it maturing into a climax stage (pine?) that nobody will bid on?  Or is it the product of the mistake made decades ago where the government planted non native (norwiegen pine?) monocultures after logging native trees on state forests? I guess they thought the open, park-like atmosphere of norwiegen pine plantations would attract people ????  Or was it, trees are trees, animals don't know the difference.... If they let it regenerate naturally, it would sustain harvest indefinetly, yet they introduced the pine, in a monoculture no less, - which is not only poor habitat but apparently not marketable for lumber??? Plenty of money in the CF to mitigate those pine plantations...

 

Most likely a combination of all of these.

 

There are several of these desert like pine forests near me.

At a few, they have clear cut and removed (probably for pulp) several sections of 10+ acres leaving all tops and

and the tress of no value. Allowed it to regenerate naturally. After 3 years, they have become tangled up, nearly impassable (to humans) areas that are great havens for all types of wildlife. They will most likely continue to evolve into diverse habitats and a more natural area. Most of these pine state lands where planted on abandoned marginal farmlands that could support far more than pine trees.

[mike rossi]

Most likely a combination of all of these.

 

There are several of these desert like pine forests near me.

At a few, they have clear cut and removed (probably for pulp) several sections of 10+ acres leaving all tops and

and the tress of no value. Allowed it to regenerate naturally. After 3 years, they have become tangled up, nearly impassable (to humans) areas that are great havens for all types of wildlife. They will most likely continue to evolve into diverse habitats and a more natural area. Most of these pine state lands where planted on abandoned marginal farmlands that could support far more than pine trees.

 

 

It would be interesting to know who's bright idea it was ... Do you happen to know?

Edited April 24, 2013 by mike rossi

[SteveB]

I believe it was done Depression or post Depression by the CCC work teams.

Sure it seemed like the best solution at the time and was good for probably 20 to 30 years.

Time for a change where long term effects are a major factor in what is done.

Even continued clear cutting ramped up would be far better than what they are now.

[mike rossi]

We are talking about the same thing, the CCC.

 

Anyway, pellet stoves are popular for heating, what are wood pellets made of? Burning wood doesn't do much for the carbon problem, but the USA has a lot of renewable forest. Wonder if this foreign pine will burn or is it just good for pulp? This is the electronic & paperless age, I believe pulp is used for paper?