Another study comes out showing more evidence Cuomo was wrong to ban fracking

[Rattler]

Seems more and more studies are coming out showing the fears of fracking are unfounded and the potential for economic gains are huge.  In NY, Cuomo made a political decision, based on emotional propaganda lacking data or evidence.  It should have been decided to only put fracking on hold until more research was done.  The amount of money that could've benefited NY's economy, as well as the taxes NY could've gained, might have taken a huge state government spending burden, off our backs.  Thanks to political agitators, it was lost, maybe forever.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/19/study-finds-fracking-doesnt-harm-drinking-water-texas/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1dNNFl6Sm1NbVJoTkRVeSIsInQiOiJaYXBid1h3c0E4RHhxSmJmc2NNNGEzYTd3K2VCQkk5TXBxRzZLRU9LZE4yaCtTUjltSW1GdjZoM215UlVPTk5WUzVjYk1CQlh4OHpZeXI2QVNlVEI3N0VLMHNzUDQ3WHAzUHZ5MUlkcmpBSTJsbWNobis2M0NhZXZoRERBR1RPaiJ9

 

 

[philoshop]

My knee jerk reaction to fracking was to be against it because the only information I had was essentially propaganda. After doing even a minimal amount of research my opinion changed. It's another missed opportunity for NYS.

[growalot]

This is a study done in a totally different geological frame then NYS..note the source of study and the cost to tax payers for road damage. Now note the difference in NYS road enviroment to Texas.  I'd have to be reading studies set up differently to from a firm opinion.

Edited June 21, 2017 by growalot

[tuckersdaddy]

For cuomo it was the right decision.... for us not so much...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

Seems the cost of road damage is minimal compared to the gains, and the gas companies would willingly pay those costs.

[growalot]

That was to form and opinion...Tired, I tend to reverse letters when tired..that and drop letters while typing....

[Doc]

The whole issue still sounds like a battle of scientist and researchers with each side having their own staff of scientific supporters. I will tell you that I don't believe there is anyone on this forum that has any credibility on the issue and all we can do is parrot back the hand-selected studies that support our own personal emotional opinions. One side champions a new study, and then the other side has to go out and find a refuting study, and we are left with no real knowledge to decide which one is right. My feeling is that the onus of proof is on the side that wants to inject poisonous chemicals into the environment. So far, none of them have convincingly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such activities can in no way be a very serious and deadly problem. And to me that is the standard of proof that I would need to support yet another activity that plays irrevocable games with the future environment. Show me definitively that this is not just another scheme for environmental exploitation with no concern with potential environmental permanent damage, and perhaps I would be supportive. But I will tell you that the proof would have to be something that is nearly universally accepted, not just one think-tank's version versus another.

[Rattler]

What we are seeing isn't more study on fracking methods and problems.  These reports are simply revealing accumulated data.  So far, no proof of any environmental crises has shown up in any of the data collected since fracking became possible.  I suspect as more and more data accumulates, we will see the fears were unfounded and envirofacists once again triumphed over progress with fear mongering.  Neither side ever offered any proof of their claims in the fracking debate, but one side was able to effect all of us.  There should not have been a "ban" put in place that is irrevocable.  Things should've remained on hold until the data became available.  The anti-frack crowd didn't want that, because they knew the data would soon prove them to be fear mongers who are really trying to stifle any positive outcome from using fossil fuels.

 

[Doc]

My attitude is that in cases of contradictory battling of scientific studies and research it is far better to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of permanent and irreversible environmental changes.

[Curmudgeon]

Without debating the science, yes, Cuomo made a political decision, and it was the right one. Since the courts had ruled that this industry could be restricted by local laws, if fracking was allowed, there would have been a hundred battles in a hundred towns. The industry would be dealing with moratoria, changing laws, and a patchwork of restricted areas. These things were out of his hands. Regardless of which side you are on, Cuomo declared peace across the state. Neighbor relations were getting really hostile here. I'm quite pleased things are back to the way they were.     

Edited June 23, 2017 by Curmudgeon
Typo

[Rattler]

I agree things are back to the way they were, but it is a matter of opinion if things are good.  They are certainly not getting better.

 

[tuckersdaddy]

The whole issue still sounds like a battle of scientist and researchers with each side having their own staff of scientific supporters. I will tell you that I don't believe there is anyone on this forum that has any credibility on the issue and all we can do is parrot back the hand-selected studies that support our own personal emotional opinions. One side champions a new study, and then the other side has to go out and find a refuting study, and we are left with no real knowledge to decide which one is right. My feeling is that the onus of proof is on the side that wants to inject poisonous chemicals into the environment. So far, none of them have convincingly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such activities can in no way be a very serious and deadly problem. And to me that is the standard of proof that I would need to support yet another activity that plays irrevocable games with the future environment. Show me definitively that this is not just another scheme for environmental exploitation with no concern with potential environmental permanent damage, and perhaps I would be supportive. But I will tell you that the proof would have to be something that is nearly universally accepted, not just one think-tank's version versus another.

Universally accepted simply wont happen... politcs are involved... we live in the most corrupt state in the US. The majority of the common land owners who might get a little something in return are generally for it.... Those in populated areas who will see little to no return are generally against it.. It all simply comes down to money. The urban area has it and controlls what the rural areas will get... Its become a sad state of affairs here in good ole NY.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Perhaps if all the rural well users in NYS had any LEGAL rights and protections ,attitudes would shift. Right now in NYS well owners have no state protections. I have been down that road.

[ATbuckhunter]

Any one who considers themselves an expert on fracking is an idiot in my opinion. No one really knows whats going to happen when you shoot high pressure water down a hole. They can theorize and say this is what should happen based on their knowledge, but many times there are variables not seen by the frackers that causes oil to go places where it shouldn't. Ill take the word of the people who have had their drinking water contaminated. 

[philoshop]

Many scientists and citizens were fearful of stringing power lines across the country in order to distribute electrical power. People and animals were being hurt by this new technology in it's early stages.

Many scientists and citizens were fearful of the "horseless carriage", the automobile. People and animals were being hurt by this new technology in it's early stages.

Everything innovative throughout our history has been opposed by someone, but we're Americans and innovation is what we do best. Innovation is also what has made this country what it is today.

The underpinnings of the 'fear of fracking' and most other ecological 'issues' are largely rooted in the fear that America will continue to be what it is; a world powerhouse supported by Capitalism. It's politics folks, pure and simple.

[ATbuckhunter]

Many scientists and citizens were fearful of stringing power lines across the country in order to distribute electrical power. People and animals were being hurt by this new technology in it's early stages.
Many scientists and citizens were fearful of the "horseless carriage", the automobile. People and animals were being hurt by this new technology in it's early stages.
Everything innovative throughout our history has been opposed by someone, but we're Americans and innovation is what we do best. Innovation is also what has made this country what it is today.
The underpinnings of the 'fear of fracking' and most other ecological 'issues' are largely rooted in the fear that America will continue to be what it is; a world powerhouse supported by Capitalism. It's politics folks, pure and simple.

I don't believe you can compare the fracking with cars or power lines due to the long term effects and the amount of unknown involved in fracking. It has contaminated drinking water in multiple parts of the country. In my opinion the unknown of what's can happen out weighs the short term monetary benefits. If something goes wrong you can kiss the land value and drinking water good bye.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

Data about long term effects are accruing every day now.  There doesn't seem to be any contamination in areas where fracking is going on.  There are wells with methane gas contamination in many areas where no fracking is going on.  There is no real evidence fracking caused any well contamination or pollution of drinking water.  It has been accused of contamination, yet nobody has provided actual proof fracking caused any of it.  If there were any real threat to the environment, I think we would have seen a lot of it by this time.

As far as NY goes, the economic positives have been rejected in favor of unknown environmental issues that may be unfounded.  If we go 50 years ahead and find fracking has never created any environmental problems at all, will we be able to reverse the ban in NY and help this dying economy then?

What was never part of this debate was any discussion about other economic plans that would take the place of the banned economic gains.

It's easy to be against something that doesn't improve the quality of your life, if you don't have any concern about others who desperately need something to improve the quality of their lives.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Rattler

[Dave]

Who's quality of life is being improved by Fracking? Not the people living in the areas that are being fracked. Only the large land holdings in the area, which are not owner by the average person. Hunting clubs and individuals who own large amount of land and who generally don't live in the area.  And if you don't think that fracking hasn't contaminated wells you must be living under a rock. The well is only the first step, now how do you get the gas from the well to the transportation lines? Through a pipeline system . So now they dig up every ones land from the well head to the trunk lines.  So tell me again how this improves the lives of the people in the fracking areas.

[ATbuckhunter]

On 6/26/2017 at 11:36 AM, Rattler said:

Data about long term effects are accruing every day now.  There doesn't seem to be any contamination in areas where fracking is going on.  There are wells with methane gas contamination in many areas where no fracking is going on.  There is no real evidence fracking caused any well contamination or pollution of drinking water.  It has been accused of contamination, yet nobody has provided actual proof fracking caused any of it.  If there were any real threat to the environment, I think we would have seen a lot of it by this time.

As far as NY goes, the economic positives have been rejected in favor of unknown environmental issues that may be unfounded.  If we go 50 years ahead and find fracking has never created any environmental problems at all, will we be able to reverse the ban in NY and help this dying economy then?

What was never part of this debate was any discussion about other economic plans that would take the place of the banned economic gains.

It's easy to be against something that doesn't improve the quality of your life, if you don't have any concern about others who desperately need something to improve the quality of their lives.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062015/fracking-has-contaminated-drinking-water-epa-now-concludes

I believe there was also cases in PA which as we know is very similar in ground structure to many parts of NY. 

[Doc]

5 hours ago, Dave said:

Who's quality of life is being improved by Fracking? Not the people living in the areas that are being fracked. Only the large land holdings in the area, which are not owner by the average person. Hunting clubs and individuals who own large amount of land and who generally don't live in the area.  And if you don't think that fracking hasn't contaminated wells you must be living under a rock. The well is only the first step, now how do you get the gas from the well to the transportation lines? Through a pipeline system . So now they dig up every ones land from the well head to the trunk lines.  So tell me again how this improves the lives of the people in the fracking areas.

Very likely that a lot of properties would fall victim to imminent domain. It's like those damned whirligigs that cover up some huge areas of the NYS landscape. The only ones that benefit are the one's who own the actual land that they are put on. Meanwhile the entire area lives with the desecration of the natural viewscape and whatever additional road damage and noise. Yes, these wonderful brain-farts do benefit a handful of landowners at the expense of everyone around them. I guess if you own the land that these schemes are implemented on, you always have the option of keeping the land to collect the royalties and live somewhere else. But your neighbors get screwed no matter what happens.

[nyantler]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

Very likely that a lot of properties would fall victim to imminent domain. It's like those damned whirligigs that cover up some huge areas of the NYS landscape. The only ones that benefit are the one's who own the actual land that they are put on. Meanwhile the entire area lives with the desecration of the natural viewscape and whatever additional road damage and noise. Yes, these wonderful brain-farts do benefit a handful of landowners at the expense of everyone around them. I guess if you own the land that these schemes are implemented on, you always have the option of keeping the land to collect the royalties and live somewhere else. But your neighbors get screwed no matter what happens.

I have many PA friends and this is not how it works... at least not in PA... there are no victims of eminent domain, all landowners in the area being fracked are compensated. They get one check for the right to frack the gas beneath their property, then monthly checks based on the amount of gas taken from the particular well pad they are associated with. Contracts are made for a specific time period... then gas companies must re-contract with landowners... paying them again for the right to take gas from under their property and re-negotiating monthly percentage payments. All well pads are kept low profile and when the pad becomes non-productive and removed, the land that the pad is on must be returned to its original state which includes re-planting of any trees or grass. No landowners in the area are left out unless they choose to be left out. None of the people I know have had any instances of contamination to their wells or any other problems. This does not prove the good or bad of fracking .. it just corrects your account of what might go on in a State that allows fracking.

[Rattler]

10 hours ago, Dave said:

Who's quality of life is being improved by Fracking? Not the people living in the areas that are being fracked. Only the large land holdings in the area, which are not owner by the average person. Hunting clubs and individuals who own large amount of land and who generally don't live in the area.  And if you don't think that fracking hasn't contaminated wells you must be living under a rock. The well is only the first step, now how do you get the gas from the well to the transportation lines? Through a pipeline system . So now they dig up every ones land from the well head to the trunk lines.  So tell me again how this improves the lives of the people in the fracking areas.

From the study in the OP 

"The study concluded the oil and gas industry, including fracking, adds $473 billion to the Texas economy and created as many as 3.8 million jobs."

PA is experiencing similar economic prosperity.  People benefit from jobs, lots of jobs.  That includes all the jobs that serve the people who do the gas jobs too, like restaurants, diners, local businesses, car dealers, etc.  I don't have time to go into great detail here, but the  economies where gas fracking is going on are booming.

Anyone with any amount of land stands to gain, on average, $3000 per acre.  Lots of small land owners in PA got thousands for the right to get to the gas far beneath their lawns.  They spend that money locally on many things like new vehicles, home improvements and necessities.  Many even donate a lot of money to local non-profits and charities.

The actual fracking process way down in the shale bed, has never been proven to contaminate wells.  Drilling holes in the ground to get down to the shale has released methane gas into wells, and that has been addressed by regulatory updates.  BTW, natural seismic activity has contaminated more wells in America than any holes drilled for fracking have.  You cannot regulate natural seismic activity problems away either.

Lastly, the gas is trucked away from the well heads, not moved through pipelines that cross people's property.

So again, fracking improves people's lives. Preconceived objections based on misunderstanding, are what's causing friction on this issue.  Cuomo and the enviro-facists have sold many NY residents a ban on fracking based on fear and a left wing political desire to end the use of all fossil fuels.  That's the real agenda.

Remember when the enviro's wanted more natural gas use in America because it was better for the environment than oil or coal?  They don't sing that tune anymore.  Why do you think that is?  Are those windmills proving to be a better option, costing much more in all areas, including the price people pay for the energy they produce?  Does solar have the potential to supply all the energy gas can at similar costs?

Fracking, in areas where it is going on, is most definitely enhancing the lives of the people in those areas, as well as people who use natural gas anywhere else.

 

 

 

[Rattler]

One correction to the above.  If gas production is too large to transport via truck, it is transported from the well head to the many already existing "transportation pipelines" via a "gathering pipeline" which is placed underground, but follows existing right of ways and public roadways.  No land is taken with eminent domain.

http://marcelluscoalition.org/marcellus-shale/production-processes/transportation-infrastructure/

[Dave]

 You can believe all the studies you want from the OIL and Gas industry. Its all BS. Even if the ban was lifted they probably wouldn't drill in NY. There are two types of gas Wet and Dry we mostly have dry ,less BTU value and less bang for the buck. The Gas companies have already drilled test wells in PA and NY near PA border  and came up with poor results. That's why they cancelled contracts in that area after already leasing the land. Why would they walk away after paying Millions of dollars on leases if there was money to make? Not to mention people in PA being cheated by the gas companies out of royalties.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Dave

[Dave]

36 minutes ago, Rattler said:

One correction to the above.  If gas production is too large to transport via truck, it is transported from the well head to the many already existing "transportation pipelines" via a "gathering pipeline" which is placed underground, but follows existing right of ways and public roadways.  No land is taken with eminent domain.

http://marcelluscoalition.org/marcellus-shale/production-processes/transportation-infrastructure/

Then tell me how the gas gets from the well head on private property to the gas company transmission lines for delivery? which in many cases is miles away !!