Will NY state lands remain "forever wild"?

[SteveB]

Civilian Conservation Core or something similar.

 

Pine makes a great pellet - all they use in the Northwest where pellet stove where born.

There are heating systems available capable of handling all kinds of commercial, residential, office, municipal, etc needs - all extremely clean burning. The gleaned wood from these pine forests and what could be taken from a sound management program of all state forests could fuel huge numbers of these systems providing local NYS energy.

[mike rossi]

The pellet fuel industry would have to operate in a way that eliminates the pine, not sustains it for sustained profits. However, after the pine is removed and habitat is restored, logging is still beneficial. Not sure that the later logging would work for the pellet industry though... I guess that would allow the lumber industry a chance...

 

A possible issue would enter if a rare native species had actually adapted to these plantations. Then starts all the job and economic arguments from the logging industry....

Edited April 24, 2013 by mike rossi

[tuckersdaddy]

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?

Natural gas prices have dropped, to historical lows. thats part of the reason the Natural gas companies are having cash flow problems making them prime targets for investors with cash (china). For some one who pays a lot of attention to the news and political arena, you seem to miss a few things. yes there is a movement towards cng (compressed natural gas) vehicals. municipalities and some buisness have begun to move into cng vehicles do to lower cost of operation. general acceptance of cng will increase as availability to filling stations increase. as the number of filling stations increase, the more accepted it will become. unlike the electric cars, there is little to no difference to the end user in the operation. As cng becomes more prevalent demand on gasoline/diesel drops, hence the price drops. 

Now sustained logging for building materials works when properly managed, but for use as an energy source for the masses? did we really forget the history of clearcutting in the 1800's? yea it didnt help the environment then and it would take 1000 times more forest resources now than it did then. The one thing we do agree upon is the planting of the pines by the ccc. long term not the best choice of tree. now that they are mature, they have little value accept possible a 2x4. They do not make good wood pellets for heating. much lower btu content per ton, compared to hard wood pellets. (i do burn pellets, and have learned). And why do i and many others burn less efficient, dirtier burning pellets? because its cheaper. leaves more money to feed the kids.   

[tuckersdaddy]

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. 

sits you'er one of the few who is consistent in their veiws. in a previous post you stated your dislike for all energy companies including the pellet makers. that makes you a true believer not a socialist.  most so called environmentalists are nothing more than hypocrites. They preach how bad it is to explore other energy sources as they sit in their 4000 sqft house with all the lights on a/c running in one room while the heat is on in another. most drive a prius if someone might see them, a land rover if no ones looking. why do i view many of these frauds as '3 headed green monsters'? because their politics have pushed us into the position we are in now. All major car companies have cars that achieve 70mpg, not hybrides, not plug in electrics, just conventional diesel burning cars. NOT allowed in the US. can anyone explain that? our energy/clean air policy simply sucks. and who was it written by? these folks have no concept, or are unable to connect the dots as to what they are 'fighting for'.  how do we know? the chevy volt or nissan leaf. plug in electric cars that wont go far enough to get me to work and take 12 to 14 hours to recharge. they actually think that charging stations on the thruway is going to help people buy and use them. 1st you have to be able to get to them, them you have to stay at the rest stop for 12 hours......oh and where does the electric come from? back to the energy question that we are debating here. 

Im all for not 'drilling' on state land, but if the neighboring wells can drill under the stateland and not disturb the surface, and the revenue it properly used, yep i dont have a problem with it happening. 

[SteveB]

You may have gotten some poor pine pellets, but overall pine makes a superior heating pellet then hardwoods. More btu's and less ash when made properly. Curran's in Massena do it right. It's counter intuitive because of our generational experience with burning wood and knowing a pine board is softer and lighter than an oak one. But when processed, a pine pellet becomes denser and therefore contains more btu's. And pine is  far easier on the mills to make than hardwood. But the difference is not huge - once the pine plantations are used, the waste from managed hardwood logging is still significant and could remain a good source of raw material. 

 

I am not suggesting pellets become the source of heat/energy in NY/NE. Just a better utilization of our state lands in an environmentally sound manner providing realistic consumptive use and being a source of income as well for the state. Long term programs with benefits to the land, the wildlife and to the residents of the state.   

[mike rossi]

I have to take issue with the comment in post 79 about which camp is driving politics. We need to know the difference between scientific debate and political debate. Anytime economics and jobs are introduced into a discussion it becomes a political debate.

[tuckersdaddy]

You may have gotten some poor pine pellets, but overall pine makes a superior heating pellet then hardwoods. More btu's and less ash when made properly. Curran's in Massena do it right. It's counter intuitive because of our generational experience with burning wood and knowing a pine board is softer and lighter than an oak one. But when processed, a pine pellet becomes denser and therefore contains more btu's. And pine is  far easier on the mills to make than hardwood. But the difference is not huge - once the pine plantations are used, the waste from managed hardwood logging is still significant and could remain a good source of raw material. 

 

I am not suggesting pellets become the source of heat/energy in NY/NE. Just a better utilization of our state lands in an environmentally sound manner providing realistic consumptive use and being a source of income as well for the state. Long term programs with benefits to the land, the wildlife and to the residents of the state.   

i used alot of different pellets this year, and all of the mixed or soft pellets were not as dense as the all hardwood. (40lb bag of hardwood filled the box, 3/4 of a 40lb bag of mix filled the box), then i would have to double the feed rate to get any heat out of them. the ash was fluffier though. much easier to vacuum.

[tuckersdaddy]

I have to take issue with the comment in post 79 about which camp is driving politics. We need to know the difference between scientific debate and political debate. Anytime economics and jobs are introduced into a discussion it becomes a political debate.

Its all political debate. The corporations are always viewed as the big bad Satan, regardless of the science. Anytime someone might make a buck the tree hugging libs go off about how bad it will be......unless they are the one making the buck.  

 

here is yet another finding that everyone was pointing fingers at the big bad gas companies, and guess what....http://wnbf.com/susquehanna-county-methane-is-naturally-caused/

Now ive posted 2 different links about the gas companies not being the evil twin of satan, why has no one posted link showing they are?  If you get past them being satan and listen to the science they offer, you might actually be able to make an informed decision, not an emotional one.

[Doc]

Its all political debate. The corporations are always viewed as the big bad Satan, regardless of the science. Anytime someone might make a buck the tree hugging libs go off about how bad it will be......unless they are the one making the buck.  

 

here is yet another finding that everyone was pointing fingers at the big bad gas companies, and guess what....http://wnbf.com/susquehanna-county-methane-is-naturally-caused/

Now ive posted 2 different links about the gas companies not being the evil twin of satan, why has no one posted link showing they are?  If you get past them being satan and listen to the science they offer, you might actually be able to make an informed decision, not an emotional one.

Oh this is complete nonsense. You think that everyone who has an issue with pumping toxins into the ground and slopping it all over the environment is a tree-hugging lib? That's utter foolishness. And if you don't think that corporations are capable of being environmentally irresponsible (and a bit devious with the truth) then you don't have much of a grasp on reality and history. And if you are looking for anti-fracking links you don't have to spent more than 3 minutes on google to find more than you could ever read.

 

Those that would give all corporations a free pass and no scrutiny and complete unquestioned faith in the "science" of corporations deserve whatever they get, but don't be criticising those that do want to make them prove their case. I think it's quite natural and proper for people to worry about environmental issues, especially extreme cases such as fracking. And thank heavens there are a few that do.

[tuckersdaddy]

Oh this is complete nonsense. You think that everyone who has an issue with pumping toxins into the ground and slopping it all over the environment is a tree-hugging lib? That's utter foolishness. And if you don't think that corporations are capable of being environmentally irresponsible (and a bit devious with the truth) then you don't have much of a grasp on reality and history. And if you are looking for anti-fracking links you don't have to spent more than 3 minutes on google to find more than you could ever read.

 

Those that would give all corporations a free pass and no scrutiny and complete unquestioned faith in the "science" of corporations deserve whatever they get, but don't be criticising those that do want to make them prove their case. I think it's quite natural and proper for people to worry about environmental issues, especially extreme cases such as fracking. And thank heavens there are a few that do.

 

So if there is hard science (not a glory seeker sitting at his table claiming there is weapons grade plutonium in his water) with 3 minutes of internet searching, why is it not being brought to light (ie posted as proof the companies are gross polluters)? If a gas company errored in such a way render an area useless, or didnt address any environmental that have been brought to light, of the ever famous claim of screw the public and the enviroment be damned, it would be all over every news source, not buried on some obscure website. 

So the fact that the anti points are not being readily backed by fact, its political,  not scientific.

[mike rossi]

So if there is hard science (not a glory seeker sitting at his table claiming there is weapons grade plutonium in his water) with 3 minutes of internet searching, why is it not being brought to light (ie posted as proof the companies are gross polluters)? If a gas company errored in such a way render an area useless, or didnt address any environmental that have been brought to light, of the ever famous claim of screw the public and the enviroment be damned, it would be all over every news source, not buried on some obscure website. 

So the fact that the anti points are not being readily backed by fact, its political,  not scientific.

Posting everything that is out there would be a full time job. It is up to the individual to seek out information and use their own judgement. The most to be hoped for is that anyone who has not paid attention to this issue begins to do so and draws their own conclusions.

As far as the quality of information, of course that is important. Activists on both sides embellish science toward their agenda. That is why you look at the science, not the propaganda. If the public majority cannot distinguish between political debate and scientific debate, it is much less likely they can distinguish between junk science/ pseudo science and science. Good science is published in peer-review scientific journals.

I doubt anybody legitimate is suggesting this industry is not risky. The grey area would be whether or not the risks are manageable or can be successfully mitigated. The second area of contention would be whether the risks after mitigation response would be "worth it". The public has a right to weigh the benefits to risks and express their opinions to the DEC and EPA whether they feel it is "worth it" or not. If it was not for the activism of anti-frackers; the industry would likely have moved forward without the public even knowing what was going on.

Edited May 2, 2013 by mike rossi

[tuckersdaddy]

Yes look at the science. Thats the point I keep harping on, where is the science proving fracking is the evil thats claimed. Ive spent many of hour looking for the bad. I cant find hard fact, hard science. Everything the anti groups is posting is emotional politics, not hard fact/science. Ive asked for anyone to post a link that will show fracking is the nightmere it is claimed. Neither you nor doc has come through. The only link that has been posted was of underground chemical storage. That tells me people are grasping at straws for proof. Yes every buisness is based on risk reward, and if you dont feel that you should on your property ill back you 100%. But dont deny me or anyone else the opertunity without bringing facts/hard science.

[Doc]

I'm not exactly sure which area science you are into since there are a whole lot of scientific aspects to the problems caused by fracking. Are you disputing that significant numbers of toxic spills occur with fracking? Are you thinking that toxic spills cannot create ground water contamination and/or airborne hazards to surrounding properties?

 

I let my fingers do the walking through the internet, and I can assure you that with just a few minutes of your time, should you choose to do so, you can find plenty of evidence from unbiased sources that plenty of toxic spills have occurred with fracking practices. I can assure you that you can find bonafide reports that not all of these spills and pollutions stayed contained to the site or property lines where they occurred. So your assurances that I can deny drilling on my property, while very generous of you still does not protect me from spills that occur on your side of the fence. 

 

I am willing to concede that as far as I know, what happens thousands of feet underground has not been proven to impact surface conditions .... yet. But I and others  are rightfully concerned about what can and does happen at the surface when dealing with toxins and carcinogenic materials. I'm not sure if that satisfies your need for scientific proof. But then I will say that I have seen no scientific evidence from you or anyone else that slopping toxins and carcinogenic materials around on the ground is environmentally safe.

 

[mike rossi]

Science doesn't necessarily  "prove" or "disprove," it looks at possibilities. Some people are not comfortable with abstract concepts or possibilities. It is notable that when conclusions support a certain point of view that those same people suddenly become comfortable with science. The available science wont showcase the proverbial nightmare you mention, however, there certainly are a significant number of documented incidents and if you look you will find them as well. Some of those incidents are consistent with scientific predictions (basic research) and some have given rise to new studies (applied research). Who knows what is NOT reported as well, did you ever work on a construction crew, I have...

 

I don't know what you mean by hard science, but I think you mean applied research, something that is often done after a problem happens. This implies that you may be skeptical about basic research which forms predictions or suggests more studies are needed. One important example of applied research is done by the industry itself. They have worked on preventing casing failure for years and are unable to solve it. This is also an example of their own research which they choose not to make public.

 

As Doc said above, there are  many issues associated with this industry. If you watched the hearings, including the dec budget hearing, were the topic wasn't really relevant, the public and the legislature want many issues studied specifically. The GEIS is general or generic. The politicians were asking about specific studies, one example being the impact on dairy cows. The dec commissioner attempted to explain the generic nature of this eis and it seemed to go over everyone's head- because they are lawyers - not scientists and they didn't do enough homework. But their points are still valid,, there is a wide range of possible impacts that can only be evaluated with their own eis. That is a lot of basic research, and basic research is not popular with the right - wing, or in this case, Obama and Cuomo, the best friends of the industry. LOL - I would agree that preemptive, basic research (on hydrofracking) is a waste of money, but not for the same reasons, my reason being that I am already convinced this industry should not be allowed to move forward.

 

If I had links off hand I would post them for you, but I don't. Since this industry has such a broad range of potential impacts, there are a variety of science journals you can search: Geology, human health, ecology, chemistry, hydrology, agriculture, the list goes on and on.

 

 

 

 

[sits in trees]

Why is it when someone disagrees with what corporate America tells us they are immediately labeled a Liberal? How did this contradiction between saving our environment and being a true blue I mean true red right wing American come about? It totally baffles me how a hunter or outdoorsman can be labeled a Liberal or tree hugger the second he or she says anything about preservation of our wilderness. How is it so many hunters today are just willing to throw caution to the wind when dealing with the scary idea of corporations telling us what is good for us and what is OK for our backyards when the very people who are telling us this don't even live in this state and many people involved with these corporations aren't even Americans?

Have you gas drilling pros looked at exactly who and where the people who have huge vested interest in these companies are from? 

[tuckersdaddy]

Sits.... it not being a steward of the environment that get people labeled tree hugging liberals. its people who snap straight to companies are bad and use the environmonet for the excuse or tool. my guess is the biggest opponents (and probably) the majority of opponent do not work in the private sector, so there way of life in general will still be paid for through public funds. (im not saying welfare im speaking public employment). there are a few private sector people that view it on principle but its a small minority. it always ruffles me a bit when i hear energy costs is too high, food costs are too high, and no one can find a job, but when a corporation comes in especially into NY with a way to help (not fix but help) they are shunned because they are a corporation, which make them evil. this happens with everthing, not just gas drilling but with all aspects of buisness. the not in my neighborhood philosophy is just adding to the decline of NY. thats what makes them liberal.

   

[NFA-ADK]

That contamination chamber...  How much water does it produce VS How much used, and would YOU drink that water?

 

Corn should be used to feed people and animals.  Not for fuel, water is our most precious resource!!!

Many other alternatives that are better, CNG, gas, electric/solar/gas hybrids.

 

Sorry I just feel any contamination of underground environment is bad.  It will seep into something, more than likely our water.  No research is going to sway my opinion on that.  And just because it is not in my town does not mean I will not be affected so I would not want it near me.  To say water can never reach the level that they just drilled to seems kind of silly to me.  Water can never reach a depth of 1000 ft?  Give me a brake...  To think of dumping thousands or millions of gallons of water and chemicals into the ground will NOT affect you seems kind of lame to me unless you do not live in the area, like an investor.

 

Just seems illogical... 

 

[Doc]

it always ruffles me a bit when i hear energy costs is too high, food costs are too high, and no one can find a job, but when a corporation comes in especially into NY with a way to help (not fix but help) they are shunned because they are a corporation, which make them evil. this happens with everthing, not just gas drilling but with all aspects of buisness. the not in my neighborhood philosophy is just adding to the decline of NY. thats what makes them liberal.

No, they are not being shunned because they are a corporation. They are being super-scrutinized because they are dealing in admitted (but secret) concoctions of toxins and carcinogens. This philosophy of "trust me" simply doesn't fly with me and any other thinking person who may have to live with whatever aftermath that results from error, accidents or just plain outright deceit. I don't think this can conveniently be labeled as liberal, conservative or any other kind of political idealogy. It is simply an environmental concern that relates to one of the critical needs of human existance ..... water. NIMBY .... You bet your behind!  Hell, I don't even want it in anybody else's backyard .... lol.

[WNYBuckHunter]

That contamination chamber...  How much water does it produce VS How much used, and would YOU drink that water?

 

Corn should be used to feed people and animals.  Not for fuel, water is our most precious resource!!!

Many other alternatives that are better, CNG, gas, electric/solar/gas hybrids.

 

Sorry I just feel any contamination of underground environment is bad.  It will seep into something, more than likely our water.  No research is going to sway my opinion on that.  And just because it is not in my town does not mean I will not be affected so I would not want it near me.  To say water can never reach the level that they just drilled to seems kind of silly to me.  Water can never reach a depth of 1000 ft?  Give me a brake...  To think of dumping thousands or millions of gallons of water and chemicals into the ground will NOT affect you seems kind of lame to me unless you do not live in the area, like an investor.

 

Just seems illogical... 

 

I was actually speaking to some PA residents earlier this year, that have fracking wells on their property, or nearby, and none of them seemed to have any problems with it. Their water and soil had been tested before the fracking started, and it gets tested regularly since.

[mike rossi]

I was actually speaking to some PA residents earlier this year, that have fracking wells on their property, or nearby, and none of them seemed to have any problems with it. Their water and soil had been tested before the fracking started, and it gets tested regularly since.

People with issues may not be talking about it. Some sources claim that many people have made legal settlements with the industry under the condition they keep their mouths shut. Use your own judgment as to if you believe this or not. However, it is believable if you consider that a member of the NY legislature had testified that PA issued a gag order on medical doctors preventing them from communicating with other physicians, apparently about mysterious illnesses. In other words, Doctor Joe cant compare notes with Doctor Tom in the next county when they both have patients with the same symptoms, live miles a part, and the only common denominator is exposure to fracking.

 

About the well tests: Each industry uses its own secret recipe and is not required to report what chemicals it uses. Researchers have indicated that there are around 600 different chemicals which are useful for the process. That would require testing for every one of the 600 chemicals. I am not a chemist, but I know enough about it that when you mix chemicals, new ones are formed, so how many different combinations can be formed with 600 substances plus whatever is naturally occurring... Chemicals may not change right at mixing either, a change in something like temperature (or pressure, or a bunch of things) can be a catalyst. That would be one heck of a lab test.... 

[WNYBuckHunter]

I hear ya. Just telling you guys what I heard from people down there.

[Doc]

Sometimes it takes a few years for that other head to grow under their armpit .... lol.

 

Seriously though, I doubt that anyone thinks that every well causes problems. If it was that guaranteed a disaster, we wouldn't be needing this conversation. In fact every spill or accident doesn't always cause problems. I just wouldn't want to be the guy that lived next to one that did create permanent subterranean pollution.

[mike rossi]

Why is it when someone disagrees with what corporate America tells us they are immediately labeled a Liberal? How did this contradiction between saving our environment and being a true blue I mean true red right wing American come about? It totally baffles me how a hunter or outdoorsman can be labeled a Liberal or tree hugger the second he or she says anything about preservation of our wilderness. How is it so many hunters today are just willing to throw caution to the wind when dealing with the scary idea of corporations telling us what is good for us and what is OK for our backyards when the very people who are telling us this don't even live in this state and many people involved with these corporations aren't even Americans?

Have you gas drilling pros looked at exactly who and where the people who have huge vested interest in these companies are from

As much as hunters throw around the term conservation and conservationists, how many of them do you think know what it is? When it says pulling the trigger is okay, its conservation. When it says it is not okay, its a liberal conspiracy toward a much broader agenda to end all hunting...

[tuckersdaddy]

After spending the morning (had to stay home with a sick little one) looking for any 'smoking gun' of environmental devastation caused by drilling. So far a list of unsubstantiated claims is all i have found. but hey i still belive in santa clause so ill keep looking.....

 

Back on the political side.  Andy wont approve drilling until he is elected president, a lame duck last minute back room signing, if then. he cant ruffle the feathers of  his political base and expect to be reelected governor, especially after the safe act uniting many against him.

 

So I guess the question i have to all anti frackers is whats the next step for energy production? What ideas do you folks have to keep energy affordable for the next 5,10,25 years?  What can be produced that will keep us from going broke, or putting us back in the stone age? I would like to hear any and all ideas that will keep us going, and work with in the regulations of the u.s. energy policy, and is environmentally friendly. 

[Doc]

If you spent all morning searching the internet for credible evidence of fracking spills and accidents and contamination and have been unsuccessful in finding any, I really don't know what to tell you. But in one hour I have found more info on actual news reports of  unintentional dumping and slopping around of toxic fracking fuels than anyone could possibly read.

 

What can be produced that will keep us from going broke, or putting us back in the stone age?

So, if we don't allow fracking, we have two choices left: go broke or be put back in the stone age ..... lol. Boy, that's got me trembling in my shoes .... lol. Environment be damned, bring on the toxins. I don't want to be sent back to the stone age.

 

Look, I am not a scientist in the field of energy. I am not likely to invent the next free source of unlimited energy. Not my area of expertise and probably not yours either. Also, unlike you apparently, I don't have a crystal ball that will predict the energy needs and sources of the future. But I can say one thing with certainty. There are limits as to my gullibility and panic and desparation to do anything at any cost, consequences be damned. I also have a pretty good idea as to how critical it is to have an abundance of pure un-polluted water. I don't need to be a scientist to figure that out. I think it is a good idea to make energy companies (or any company for that matter) jump through hoops when it comes to plans to inject toxins and carcinogens into the ground. I'm all for those that are holding their feet to the fire to ensure that we are not signing up for some environmentally hazardous scheme. Somebody is making them prove their case? ..... Well good for them! It's about time that we had some actual citizen concern rather than just being bribed with money and jobs to charge ahead with the blinders on. That old saying, "trust me" doen't work so well anymore. What the hell took us so long to finally learn that lesson.