New York Sheds Light on its Fracking Plans
Location: New York
Date: 2013-01-07
New York State is moving a step closer to allowing fracking on
certain properties there. Its governor has been awaiting the
findings of a detailed analysis on whether the shale gas drilling
process can be done without jeopardizing the local water supplies
and the region’s air quality.
The New
York Times got access to an eight-page analysis that said the
process would safeguard both air and water. But the paper is
reporting that Governor Andrew Cuomo will likely restrict such
drilling to the southern parts of the state that border
Pennsylvania. Those landowners are generally in favor of shale gas
exploration while other parts of the state are adamantly opposed.
The paper also says that environmental groups are lambasting the
newly acquired report that is not yet public. They are saying that
the authors, who are part of the New York Health Department, did not
do much original research. That concern, in combination with what
they say is a lack of transparency, diminish the report’s findings.
Meantime, the governor’s office is saying that the analysis scooped
by the Times is old and that a newer version of it is forthcoming --
and that no formal decisions have been made.
“By implementing the proposed mitigation measures, the (Health)
Department expects that human chemical exposures during normal
(fracking) operations will be prevented or reduced below the levels
of significant health concern,” says the original report.
New York State has banned fracking until it can gather more facts on
whether it pollutes local drinking water supplies. The process
involves using a concoction of sand, water and chemicals to loosen
shale gas from the rocks where it is held, all a mile below the
earth’s surface. Critics are maintaining that the chemicals ooze out
and damage surface water while proponents of fracking say that the
depths of the finds prevent such exposure.
Producers are pointing to a Yale
University study indicating that as long as as current
production rates are constant, shale gas development would add $100
billion a year to the national economy. The same analysis says that
environmental mishaps could be mitigated.
Lack of Transparency
For his part, President Obama has said that shale gas production is
a key catalyst to future economic development but that his
administration would apply the necessary oversight to ensure good
results. Among the measures he would require is to have natural gas
developers to reveal the chemicals that they are using to frack --
something to which they have been opposed on competitive grounds.
But those producers may need to bend. That’s because the onslaught
headed their way could undo their futures. Opponents are citing a
study from the Colorado School of Public Health that says anyone
living near drilling sites is getting exposed to unhealthy
conditions.
“We’ve seen fracking and drilling for oil and natural gas
contaminate water supplies, pollute our air and industrialize rural
communities,” says Food
& Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “With the oil
and gas industry enjoying so many exemptions from key environmental
laws, it’s clear that we can’t regulate ourselves away from this
problem. We need to ban fracking now.”
Those adversaries just got an added boost when it was revealed in
December that a key study had been declared flawed and opaque. That
is, fracking advocates had been pointing to an examination performed
by the University
of Texas. But its key author, Dr. Charles Groat, didn't reveal
that he was paid $1.5 million over five years to sit on the board of
a drilling company.
Beyond the lack of transparency, the study has been criticized for
its scientific shortcuts -- that it “lacked a rigorous, independent
review.” Dr. Groat was therefore forced to resign his professorship
at the university while the head of the school's Energy Institute,
Dr. Raymond Orbach, was also pushed out.
Meantime, the University of Buffalo released a pro-fracking report
last spring. It, too, failed to reveal conflicts of interest,
forcing the school to not just discard the study but to also disband
its institute that focused on shale gas production.
Indeed, those conflicts get to the heart of many issues affecting
the energy sector. Namely, both proponents and opponents of issues
will secretly bankroll studies that use selective parameters to
support their positions. They then hire media professionals and
think tanks that they also fund to hype the findings. Independent
studies have the most authenticity. But in the absence of that, the
authors must thoroughly disclose from whom they are getting paid.
Despite some lack of transparency, the shale gas industry generally
has a good track record. It should be permitted to expand production
but under the watchful eye of both federal and state regulators.
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.riskcenter.com
|