Cornell Veterinarians Go Into “Beast Mode” on Shale
When it comes to the issue of responsibly developing oil and natural gas resources from shale, we’ve seen a lot of wacky things come out of Ithaca, New York over the past couple years. So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development...
When it comes to the issue of responsibly developing oil and natural gas resources from shale, we’ve seen a lot of wacky things come out of Ithaca, New York over the past couple years.
The primary recipient of millions of dollars every year of anti-shale advocacy provided by the Park Foundation (also based in Ithaca), Cornell University has become to anti-energy activists what “Linebacker U” was once to Penn State — with the debunked-ad-nauseum Howarth paper on shale emissions serving as the movement’s main playbook. Ithaca also happens to be the place from which outlets like the New York Times pull “data” on mineral leasing, notwithstanding the fact that no actual Marcellus development even takes place there.
So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development for its supposed link to animal health impacts. (One of the authors, Robert Oswald is a professor at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine; the other, Michelle Bamberger, received her doctorate from Cornell.)
Now, needless to say, we don’t have any bones to pick with veterinarians, and in fact the scientific research they provide on a daily basis is without question critical to us better understanding the natural world (plus, we love dogs). But the authors here did not produce a scientific assessment, a fact they freely admit in their article. Instead, Oswald and Bamberger chose to highlight a handful of personal testimonials that cannot be independently assessed or verified because they decided to keep all relevant details anonymous. Thus, we’re left with a 27-page unscientific article making bold assertions about oil and gas development, without a single shred of data or independent corroboration to back any of it up.
While the article contains many flaws, we’ve highlighted a few of the key problems below, all of which should raise serious doubts about the “scientific” nature of this particular article.
- Right off the bat, the paper leads with a philosophical quote from Sandra Steingraber, who has described hydraulic fracturing as “the tornado on the horizon” that will destroy people’s ability to do everything, from local gardening to even riding a bicycle (Orion Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2010). Ms. Steingraber has also called for an end to all fossil fuels to “avoid human calamity.” With respect to shale development, Ms. Steingraber has stated: “If we mitigate fracking to kill fewer people, we’re still killing people” (The Vindicator, Jan. 10, 2012).
- The authors assert that developing natural gas from shale is “moving forward without benefit of carefully controlled studies of its impact on public health” (p. 52). Aside from the fact that the authors readily admit in the paper that their own conclusions are not the result of controlled experiments, their claim is simply not true. For example, a study from earlier this year by the city of Fort Worth, TX, concluded there were “no significant health risks” from nearby shale development (July 2011).
- A separate scientific assessment of the Barnett Shale in north Texas concluded: “[E]ven as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area over the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times” (Oct. 19, 2011). The Barnett Shale is one of the most productive shale fields in the United States, with more than 15,000 producing wells.
- Instead of seeking out the answer to a legitimate question – what, if any, are the health impacts of developing natural gas from shale? – the authors simply accuse the industry of taking a position “similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer” (p. 52). The report goes on to suggest that “epidemiologic studies [that] linked smoking to human health impacts…could be used to assess the health impacts of gas drilling operations on human beings” (p. 53). It seems the authors have already made up their minds.
- The authors clearly admit that the study is not sound science: “This study is not an epidemiologic analysis of the health effects of gas drilling, which could proceed to some extent without knowledge of the details of the complex mixtures of toxicants involved. It is also not a study of the health impacts of specific chemical exposures related to gas drilling” (p. 53).
- Later in the article the authors further concede: “By the standards of a controlled experiment, this is an imperfect study, as one variable could not be changed while holding all others constant” (p. 55). Instead, the article is merely a compilation of unsourced and unverifiable case studies.
- The report conceals names and locations, which means independent review of the claims and parties involved cannot be completed; statements from the researchers about their findings are simply asserted as fact. Ironically, much of the paper is committed to critiquing the industry for not disclosing enough information to independently verify data.
- Despite its lack of scientific bent, the authors nonetheless conclude definitively that their assessment “strongly implicates exposure to gas drilling operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife.” They go further and, without any scientific evidence, state that “a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health” (p. 72).
Calling for a ban on responsible oil and gas development without any scientific basis? Wait, we’ve heard this one before…
Again, those interested in the supposed health impacts of developing natural gas from shale should reference this assessment from October, in which two public health professionals studied conditions in the Barnett shale region of north Texas. Their conclusion? Even though the area has been one of the highest gas producing regions of the country, “key indicators of health improved across every major category.” That followed a study from last summer for the city of Fort Worth which “did not reveal any significant health threats” from shale development.
*Update II* Fracturing Technology Lowering Energy Prices – Even In Areas It’s Not Used
Try as some folks might, it’s just getting tougher and tougher to avoid/ignore/deny the reality of responsible shale development qua massive creator of jobs, revenue and American opportunity. Just this week, the Associated Press highlighted the significant employment gains being made right now in the Buckeye State — where natural gas development is re-invigorating the U.S. steel industry and pumping literally billions of dollars back into communities that could sure use the lift right now.
Of course, you could also look west to North Dakota, where the state is enjoying a nation leading 3.5% unemployment rate thanks to the development of the Bakken. And as those development activities have continued across the country, another benefit is making itself known to the American consumer: significant cost savings in the form of lower energy bills.
In a recent article in the Buffalo News, Gary Marchiori, President of Energy Mark, a local energy services firm in upstate New York, summed this up quite succinctly stating:
Whether they realize it or not, consumers in the Buffalo Niagara region are benefiting from natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale every time they turn their furnace on.
Here, he’s talking about how the responsible development of the Marcellus Shale – and other tight reservoirs in the east – has had the effect of driving down natural gas prices across the entire country, reducing the cost of heating homes, cooking your food and manufacturing just about anything in the world that matters.
In New York, this trend is borne out in estimates for heating costs this year put forward by the National Fuel Company. The company declared that the typical residential household will have winter heating costs of approximately $719 which is a $350 decrease from prices paid just two years ago.
Sounds nice right? Just to make sure, we thought we’d give Mr. Marchiori a call ourselves, having never spoken to the man previous to seeing him quoted in the newspaper. And guess what? Turns out Gary’s a great guy who knows a great deal about energy markets in western New York, and beyond. According to Gary:
Due to excess surplus from shale, you should have [natural gas] stored and retained throughout the year, keeping prices low well through next year. Adding to this stability is presence of major natural gas producers, whose additional exploration and production can be expected to lead to a more predictable supply, thus removing significant market volatility and also helping to keep prices low for the consumer.”
Of course, these benefits are not limited to New York. In fact, the UGI corporation, one of the largest utilities on the east coast providing natural gas to approximately 56,000 customers, also announced that it would be lowering its natural gas prices resulting in cost savings on average of 13.5% to residential customers. While a rate decrease of this magnitude may not seem significant, with this decrease natural gas costs for UGI customers will be about 27% less than they were just three short years ago. This good news may just end up meaning an extra present or two below the Christmas tree this year in many homes thanks to cost savings brought about by shale development.
According to Vicki O. Ebner, Senior Vice President, Customer & Government Relations at UGI, this all attributable to the safe and responsible development of our nation’s shale resources:
The increase of supplies of natural gas from Marcellus Shale has helped create continued downward price pressure on natural gas. We are pleased to pass this cost savings on to our customers as we approach the winter heating season, especially in the midst of extreme price volatility for other energy sources. Now more than ever, natural gas is an affordable, efficient and reliable American fuel, and the energy source of choice for homes and businesses.
All of this comes on top of news released earlier this year from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA stated earlier this year that throughout the northeast, wholesale natural gas prices were down between 2% and 15% over the summer, reflecting both lower regional demands and growing natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale.
Benefits like these can’t be trivialized easily by those opposing natural gas development as it means the chance to breathe a bit easier for our nation’s neediest families. After all with announcements earlier this year indicating that 16 million U.S. children are living below the poverty level this year (highest level since 1962) we are pretty sure that many families appreciate cost savings wherever they can be found. Thanks to natural gas development one place to look is your monthly utility bill.
Update 1- December 1, 2011
Today, the Scranton Times Tribune also featured the cost-savings brought about in northeast Pennsylvania thanks to Marcellus development. The paper adds to this already great story, stating:
- Those who heat their homes with natural gas will get a big break this heating season as rates plunge to their lowest level in more than a decade thanks largely to Marcellus Shale development
- “The state’s Marcellus Shale production, still considered by many to be in it’s infancy, “can in 13 days meet UGI customers needs for an entire year” and “the shale gas has pulled down wholesale natural gas prices nationwide“
- One energy analyst interviewed for the article stated, “a few months ago I would have said prices couldn’t go much lower, but here we are with still lower prices”
Update II- December 2, 2011
The hits just keep on coming. Today, the Des Moines Register confirmed that shale gas is significantly bringing down consumer prices of natural in the Hawkeye State and across the continental United States. The article, titled “Natural Gas Story Warm and Fuzzy” highlighted the benefits shale development is bringing to folks in Iowa, among many other places. Specifically informing Iowans that while they may be preparing for their first sub-freezing temperatures of the year staying warm may be just a bit less costly as:
the price of natural gas, the prime heating fuel in the state, is running at a five-year low thanks to expanded domestic production.
Iowa joins Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island (and just about all of New England for that matter) and countless other states enjoying reduced utility bills this winter thanks to the safe and responsible development of our natural gas resources. As our nation continues to struggle with stubbornly high unemployment rates for many Americans struggling to make ends meet it is likely comforting to know that staying warm will cost less and that continued production should keep this the case for some time.
Maryland Strongly Supports Natural Gas Production
New poll finds Maryland voters, like their neighbors in New York and Pennsylvania, want to participate in the shale gas revolution
It may be news to government officials in Annapolis who have imposed a temporary pause on hydraulic fracturing, but voters throughout the state of Maryland actually support natural gas production. Big time.
A new poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies finds that an incredible 80% of Marylanders support natural gas production in the United States, including 60% who “strongly support” it. The poll finds large majority support for developing natural gas among both men and women, across all political affiliations, and in every region of the state.
As for producing natural gas specifically in western Maryland, where the Marcellus Shale could provide significant new economic opportunities for the Old Line State, nearly 75% of voters in the state express support. Production in western Maryland also enjoys majority support across all demographics polled in the state.
This poll comes as another Quinnipiac survey in New York shows a plurality of voters support Marcellus Shale development, a fact that has remained consistent in Quinnipiac’s polling over the past few months. A Siena poll from last month also found more New Yorkers supported than opposed natural gas production.
And in neighboring Pennsylvania, where the Mighty Marcellus is the source of significant job creation and the rebirth of manufacturing, voters say the economic benefits of drilling outweigh any perceived environmental issues by 62 percent to 30 percent.
Throughout the United States, natural gas development enjoys 81% support according to a recent poll by the American Consumer Institute (ACI).
READ MORE
- Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies: Maryland Statewide Poll on Natural Gas
- Marcellus Shale Coalition: “Mighty Marcellus Continues Impressive Job Creation Streak Across the Commonwealth“
- American Consumer Institute: “New Poll Reveals Consumers Support Expanding U.S. Energy Initiatives to Create Jobs“
- Quinnipiac University: New York State (NY) Poll (Oct. 27, 2011)
Top NY Environmental Regulator: “No Evidence” That HF Has Impacted Groundwater
There’s been a lot of buzz lately about how hydraulic fracturing — a tightly regulated procedure that has been used over one million times since the 1940s — supposedly contaminates groundwater. The claim was given new life last week when the New York Times’ anti-shale reporter Ian Urbina published yet another easy-on-the-facts story about hydraulic fracturing, this time focusing upon a 30-year old EPA assessment whose methodology had more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese.
Keep Reading »
As reported by New York’s WBGH-TV, Jannette Barth – a leading voice against responsible, job-creating Marcellus Shale gas development – is set to again question the thousands of blue-collar, natural gas-related jobs being created in the region at a New York Residents Against Drilling (NYRAD)-sponsored forum later this week.
Keep Reading »
What’s worse than a lame-duck vote on a bill to impede Marcellus development in New York? A lame-duck vote in the middle of the night.
It turns out your mother was right all along: Nothing good ever happens after midnight.
Of course, when it comes to state legislature in Albany, it’s not entirely clear that much good happens before it either. Monday night, at around 11:30 p.m. EST, the New York State Assembly signed-off on legislation seeking to install a six-month ban on “the issuance of new permits for the drilling of a well which utilizes the practice of hydraulic fracturing.” The late-night, lame-duck vote follows passage of the same bill in the New York State Senate in August – remarkably, a debate that was held even later in the evening than the Assembly had to endure this week.
Which got us to wondering: Why do you think it is these guys insist on taking up sweeping moratoria bills in the dead of the night, while the vast majority of their constituents are fast asleep? Although we can’t say for sure, one of the reasons may be that the legislation in question is so slapdash in its construction that, if it actually were to ever take effect, virtually all oil and natural gas development in New York could come to a halt – irrespective of which formations are being targeted. Our friends at ProPublica (!) made precisely this point back in August when the State Senate initially passed the bill:
| But the language in the final bill … does not differentiate between the different ways hydraulic fracturing can be used. It appears to be a blanket prohibition that would also stop hydraulic fracturing in New York’s many vertical oil and gas wells and would apply to drilling in geologic formations outside the Marcellus. |
Just in case you’re scoring at home, there are more than 6,700 producing natural gas wells currently in service in New York, according to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and about 5,000 producing oil wells. Just about every one of them requires fracture stimulation technology to remain a viable source of energy. And they also require workers. So how many folks might lose their job if this bill successfully initiates a coup de grâce on oil and gas in New York? According to the Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York (IOGA), the impact would be far from insignificant – especially at a time when more than 900,000 New Yorkers are already out of work:
| [IOGA] warned that the legislation as written could halt hydraulic fracturing already going on elsewhere in the state. … If that were to happen, the group said, it could jeopardize 5,000 industry jobs and the $1 million in annual revenue that the state collects from drilling permit fees. … “The governor must be made to understand the vast unintended consequences and act quickly to reject this needless legislation,” Brad Gill, executive director of the trade group, said. |
It’s a sad turn of events for a state that’s been producing natural gas since the second-term of the Monroe administration – and especially difficult to understand when one considers New York consumes more natural gas than every state in the Union save California and Texas. Maybe that’s why its per-capita CO2 emissions are the lowest in the nation as well. But you know what? Ninety-five percent of New York’s natural gas has to be pipelined-in from someplace else, mostly the Gulf Coast and Canada. And if this bill ends up being signed into law, it’d be tough to imagine that number not climbing up to 100 percent pretty soon thereafter.
But wait a second: Maybe we’re being a bit too pessimistic in appraising the actual impact of this legislation. And maybe we’re being a bit too complimentary of the opposition in suggesting this bill represents a dispositive (and fatal) development at a time when DEC is still actively working to finalize its draft regulations.
Take a look at the language of the moratorium bill once again: “This act shall …expire and be deemed repealed on May 15, 2011.” So basically we’re dealing with a bill that bans the development of the Marcellus at a time when the development of the Marcellus was already effectively halted, pending the release of DEC’s final regulatory framework.
And of course, no one believed that DEC was going to release that final document before May anyway – not with a new governor coming in, and an entirely new leadership team installed atop the agency. “We already have a de facto moratorium on horizontal hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale, and as far as I’m concerned, this really was a big mistake from the beginning.” Another comment from Brad Gill and IOGA-NY, right? Actually, this statement comes from anti-shale activist Walter Hang in today’s Ithaca paper. For once, Walter, we agree with you.
The indefatigable Tom Shepstone, friend of Energy In Depth and an active exponent of responsible shale development in PA and NY, shares his analysis of what the New York Assembly vote actually means in practice:
| [Shale gas opponents] are obviously ecstatic but I’m not at all sure they should be. All evidence is that New York State is still acting in a pro-gas fashion … and a 6-month moratorium is essentially meaningless, as it will take that long for the … regs to go into place and a new Governor to put his stamp on the drilling process in New York. This is, indeed, classic New York State politics – demagoguery that masks actions of precisely the opposite effect. |
Practical effects aside, though, the message that Albany sent this week is that “New York State is closed for business,” according to Democratic Asm. Michael Benjamin, who represents a district in the Bronx and views the responsible development of the Marcellus in the Southern Tier as an important stream of revenue for the state and a potential source of good-paying jobs for his constituents. And of course, he’s right. But then, the other side’s got good arguments too, right? Here’s how Asm. Robert Castelli, Republican from Westchester County, justified his pro-moratorium vote to the Ithaca Journal: “Our environment should not be reducing the protection of the environment to the level of a political football.” Unfortunately, no English translation was available.
So what happens next? Unfortunately, the outgoing governor appears poised to sign this ramshackle bill into law later this month, hoping against hope that this single act initiates a rapprochement with the special interest groups that blasted him apart following the abrupt dismissal of DEC commissioner Pete Grannis. And hey, there’s already some evidence out there indicating this may be a smart move for him politically. Keep in mind, the bill hasn’t even been signed yet. But that didn’t stop activists from Catskill Citizens for Safe [read: “No”] Energy from projecting what Gov. Paterson’s legacy will be if it is:
| By signing this bill, Governor Paterson will cement his reputation as the first Governor in the country to protect his citizens from the precipitous onslaught of dangerous and poorly regulated shale gas extraction. |
Yeah, we get it: tough economic times out there, and who can blame a man who’s just looking for his next job? But you know who else is looking for work right now? More than 900,000 of the governor’s fellow New Yorkers – some of whom could extricate themselves from the unemployment rolls tomorrow if the development of the trillion-dollar resource known as the Marcellus Shale was allowed to commence today. Isn’t it about time for Albany to stand up and represent those folks’ interests as well?
McMahon Letter to Gov. Paterson Decrying Hydraulic Fracturing Short on Facts, Long on Hysteria
Keep Reading »
