New York

Library

Report Finds Enormous Cost of HF Delays in New York
The Marcellus shale continues to bring good news to Pennsylvania: high-paying jobs, royalty payments for families, and an affordable feedstock for American manufacturers. Unfortunately, as these benefits are realized by Commonwealth towns and counties, neighboring New York has been left to watch, waiting for these same benefits – much like the natural gas underground -- to be brought to the surface. And as a new report highlights, those potential benefits are enormous.

Dana
Staff Geologist

The Marcellus shale continues to bring good news to Pennsylvania: high-paying jobs, royalty payments for families, and an affordable feedstock for American manufacturers. Unfortunately, as these benefits are realized by Commonwealth towns and counties, neighboring New York has been left to watch, waiting for these same benefits – much like the natural gas underground — to be brought to the surface. And as a new report highlights, those potential benefits are enormous.

The report from the Empire Center, a project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, takes a look at how shale development is creating jobs and generating income in Pennsylvania counties – and how it could provide the same benefits throughout New York. That hinges, of course, on whether Governor Cuomo will lift the five-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.

According to the report, between 2007 and 2011, Pennsylvania counties with more than 200 Marcellus wells experienced a 19 percent rise in per-capita income. Counties with fewer wells also experienced growth; those with 20 to 200 wells had a 14 percent income rise, and those with fewer than 20 wells registered a 12 percent rise. As the report highlights, these benefits are clear and concrete.

“By our count, there are immediate and concrete benefits in hydrofracturing wells: more money in the pockets of the people, more tax revenue for the state. These data deserve close attention and consideration as New York State confronts its decision.” (p.10)

So what do these numbers mean for neighboring New Yorkers? According to the Empire Center’s data, the twenty eight New York counties above the Marcellus Shale would see a 15 percent income-growth rate over the four years following the lifting of the current moratorium – a growth rate of six percent above what they are currently experiencing. That translates to over $8 billion in extra income to upstate New York families.

To put these numbers into action, take the example of Chemung County – a county in southwestern New York with much to gain from hydraulic fracturing. In 2011, Chemung County had a per-capita income of under $36,000, about average for the Empire state’s Marcellus counties. But as the report notes:

“Under the hydrofracturing moratorium, our model projects that Chemung will see a per-capita income of over $38,000 in 2015, a 7 percent increase. Total annual income would have increased by $231 million. However, if hydrofracturing were permitted in Chemung, natural gas extraction start-up and the drilling of just 20 unconventional wells through the period would have brought per-capita income up to an estimated $39,207, an increase of over 10 percent. Well-drilling at the average Pennsylvania rate of 52.3 wells in 2011–15 would bring another full percent of income growth, to $39,540.” (p.9)

Real money in the pockets of real Americans. It’s hard to argue with that – although Governor Cuomo’s continued delays have certainly prevented that income from becoming a reality.

As with anything, the study notes you cannot weigh benefits without costs, and that any final decisions about moving forward with the practice in New York state will consider both. But as the environmental benefits of clean-burning natural gas continue to unfold, and as technological advances make industry safer and cleaner every day, those costs are on a clear downward trajectory. Also of note: a Yale Graduate Energy Study Group looked at shale development and compared the cost of repairing potential environmental damage with the likely benefits to consumers and producers, the benefits exceeded costs by a factor of up to 400 to one.

Development of the Marcellus Shale is a net positive for consumers, counties, and the environment alike. The quicker New York can recognize those facts and move forward with responsible development, the better it will be for families in the Southern Tier, and indeed for all energy consumers throughout New York.

*UPDATE* “100% Renewables” for N.Y. Plan Meets Reality; Reality Wins
A new paper from scientists at Stanford, Cornell, and the University of California at Davis suggests the state of New York could generate all of its energy from three sources: wind, water, and solar. This also includes a large scale shift to hydrogen fuel cells (produced by “excess” renewable power generation) to allow for even New York’s transportation to run on renewable energy sources. But before you say, “That doesn’t sound possible,” don’t worry – other credible voices have already suggested as much.

Steve
Spokesman

UPDATE (4/8/2013; 4:18pm ET): How much would this fairy tale plan for New York cost, even if it weren’t hindered by novel concepts like physics and reality? A whopping $382 billion by 2030, according to calculations done by Bloomberg. It would also require an amount of land equivalent to 13 percent of New York State’s total area, which is an interesting plan to endorse by folks who are opposing responsible shale development partially on the basis that it would overtake New York’s majestic landscape!

As Bloomberg further observes:

The findings cast doubt on the ability of the state to eliminate oil, natural gas and coal from its energy supply. The Cornell proposal would require onshore wind turbines covering an area 3.3 times the size of New York City’s five boroughs.

“It’s too ambitious by 2030 to replace all the state’s power with renewables, although big progress could be made,” Angus McCrone, a senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said today. The projections, he said, look “unrealistic” for individual technologies. (emphasis added)

At least it was a fun thought experiment while it lasted, though, right?

—Original post, March 14, 2013—

A new paper from scientists at Stanford, Cornell, and the University of California at Davis suggests the state of New York could generate all of its energy from three sources: wind, water, and solar. This also includes a large scale shift to hydrogen fuel cells (produced by “excess” renewable power generation) to allow for even New York’s transportation to run on renewable energy sources.

But before you say, “That doesn’t sound possible,” don’t worry – other credible voices have already suggested as much. Andy Revkin of the New York Times said the paper’s analysis “works best as a thought experiment” (ouch), given what he deems “monumental hurdles – economic political, regulatory and technical – that would hinder such a shift” away from energy sources like oil and natural gas (among others).

Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and a senior fellow at The Breakthrough Institute (a progressive think tank), says that the authors’ claims of having a technically and economically feasible plan is “dubious empirically,” adding that “people are not going to be reordering society along the lines called for here [in the paper].” It appears Dr. Pielke’s central concern is with the authors’ assumption that, under the plan outlined, energy consumption in New York will actually decrease by 37 percent (!) by 2030, even as the population grows by 2.15 percent. For reasons that should already be obvious, Dr. Pielke called the plan a “fantasy” and the product of “magic thinking.”

Also of note: the list of authors includes none other than Cornell activists Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea, whose own research on natural gas development has been debunked categorically throughout the academic community, including on multiple occasions by the U.S. Department of Energy. The Howarth/Ingraffea “findings” nonetheless serve as a linchpin to this latest study’s conclusions, which of course should raise serious red flags itself.

The lead author, Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, has become something of an impresario of the anti-fracking speaking circuit, and is touted by vocal anti-shale activist (and occasional B-list actor) Mark Ruffalo as “America’s real Bruce Banner.” Two years ago, Dr. Jacobson also decided it would be a worthwhile use of his time to hold a strategy session with Josh Fox and Mark Ruffalo, according to the Huffington Post:

In February, 2011, Jacobson, Fox, Krapels, and Ruffalo brainstormed by phone. A consensus developed quickly — the team agreed that if Jacobson could refine his research to address the specific characteristics of New York State’s natural resources and energy potential, his groundbreaking work could provide the alternative energy plan Ruffalo was determined to identify for his adopted state.

Of course, Ruffalo has played a scientist in the movies before, and Fox has been known to make a few movies of his own, so this collaboration seems entirely reasonable to us.

Let’s be real for just a second: this paper really doesn’t have a whole lot to do with renewables, which, truth be told, continue to see their installation numbers increase owing to the abundance and availability of dispatchable, baseload natural gas. The paper’s entire focus (just look at who its authors are!) is aimed at manufacturing a new talking point in opposition to the development of natural gas from shale in the state. But motivations aside, how good is the actual paper? Below, we take a closer look

Bad Science to Justify Ban on Natural Gas

The plan outlined by Jacobson et. al., requires a complete phase out of natural gas, based primarily on research from Cornell professors Howarth and Ingraffea. From the paper:

“Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit electric power than coal, two factors cause natural gas to increase global warming relative to coal: higher methane emissions and less sulfur dioxide emissions per unit energy than coal.” (p. 7)

The authors also cite research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the same research that has been debunked and even cautiously marginalized by the Environmental Defense Fund. We’ve outlined many times before why the methane leak accusation is not grounded in credible science (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), but the main takeaway is this: Most research shows a leakage rate of one to two percent, and the EPA’s latest data suggests methane emissions could be 66 percent lower than what the agency had previously estimated (EPA’s best guess for leakage, based on its earlier data, was a little over two percent). We also know that natural gas is reducing carbon emissions and cutting air pollution in the United States.

Thus, opposing natural gas on the basis that it is worsening climate change and harming air quality is not a factual argument; it’s a talking point, and a very bad one at that.

Not content to rely solely on discredited theories about emissions, the authors also claim that “the use of electricity for heating and electric motors is more efficient than is fuel combustion for the same applications,” citing a previous study authored by … themselves.

But heating cost data from the Energy Information Administration show the average fuel price per million Btus for electricity is $34.57, whereas the average price per million Btus for natural gas is $6.01. That makes natural gas more than 80 percent cheaper than electricity.

And according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, even an electric water heater that appears to have an efficiency rating of 50 percent higher than a comparable natural gas heater will actually use “much more source energy,” because it takes three times as much energy to deliver a unit of electricity instead of gas.

So natural gas is substantially cheaper and more efficient from a total energy use standpoint, yet the authors of this study want to pretend that electricity is “more efficient”? Since calling for more electric heating also means increasing energy use significantly, how can the authors expect total energy demand to decrease by more than one-third?

Retrofitting or Replacing Everything in New York City

You know all those skyscrapers, bridges and scenic walkways in New York City? The plan would require that nearly all of them be either (a) bulldozed or (b) entirely retrofitted from top to bottom. Mark Delucchi of UC-Davis (one of the co-authors) told the New York Times: “Instead of upgrading, maintaining, and replacing deteriorating existing infrastructure, invest in new infrastructure.”

Are we really to believe the local population will cheerfully allow legions of (taxpayer-funded) construction crews to enter Manhattan, tie up traffic in every direction, and displace millions of people while buildings are retrofitted, revamped, or outright razed? For Pete’s sake: Mayor Bloomberg is facing a big enough backlash from his new plan to ban big sodas!

And you know all those natural gas pipelines that crisscross throughout the city, providing heat to families and businesses? They’re going to have to be decommissioned, dug up, and either replaced or removed altogether. If the skyscraper replace-and-retrofit plan wasn’t already going to turn the city into a big enough construction zone, the pipeline work certainly would.

Plus, it’s worth noting: New York City has stated that “80 percent of the buildings that will exist in 2050 are already here today,” which means any suggestion that the buildings in that city (much less the entire state) can be easily replaced is an argument against social, political, and technological realities.

Renewables Seen Through Rose-Colored Glasses

We all love renewables, and no one wants to stand in the way of technological progress. According to the renewable energy industry itself, shale gas is not only a perfect partner for renewables, it’s also facilitating rapid growth of wind and solar – the same technologies that groups like the Sierra Club and NRDC have invested so much of their time and other people’s money promoting.

But we also love facts, and pretending that you can fit a square peg into a round hole just doesn’t measure up. Unfortunately, that’s what the authors of this latest report are trying to do.

For example, the authors state: “Offshore wind, wave and tidal are in water, and so do not require new land.” The claim that offshore wind turbines “do not require new land” may technically be true from a pure, direct-use, look-only-at-onshore-acreage standpoint. Just don’t tell it to the Kennedys, who seem to have an outsized ability to influence energy discussions in New York. The bigger point is that just because a huge offshore wind turbine isn’t built on land doesn’t mean it has zero impact. Nor is this just aesthetic; building out infrastructure to support the offshore turbines (when they produce energy, that energy has to be sent somewhere) means onshore land disturbance.

There’s also the issue of economic impacts. Aside from the direct, taxpayer-borne cost, an economy-wide shift away from affordable energy sources like oil and natural gas means a lot of hardworking men and women will lose their jobs. In New York specifically, a lot of families upstate have been struggling for a long time because the Governor can’t make up his mind on whether to allow responsible shale development, so one could only imagine the backlash to a declaration banning not only natural gas, but also oil, nuclear, and coal.

The authors claim, however, that renewable power actually creates more jobs than conventional fuels, so the net impact will actually be positive in terms of jobs:

“Even if the current electric utility industry plus mining jobs were lost due to a conversion with the present plan, they would be more than made up by with the 58,000 permanent jobs resulting from the present plan.” (p. 37)

As evidence, the authors cite research showing oil and natural gas create 3.7 jobs for every million dollars spent on those resources, but wind and solar create 9.8 and 9.8 jobs, respectively. When you consider how much more expensive wind and solar are, the math would appear to support the authors, especially if you were to produce (theoretically) the same amount of energy from renewables as projected to be generated by oil and natural gas.

But that also raises a serious and more fundamental problem for the report, as it essentially offers an efficiency argument in favor of natural gas over renewables.

For example, let’s look at electricity production. According to the EIA, the total system levelized cost for a conventional, combined cycle natural gas plant is $66.10 per megawatt-hour. For wind, that price is $96, and for solar it’s more than $150. When you add in the capacity factors (87 percent for natural gas, 33 percent and 25 percent for wind and solar, respectively), you’ll see that spending $1 million on natural gas is going to produce a lot more energy than wind and solar. It also means natural gas is more productive from an energy-produced-per-hours-worked basis.

In other words, the authors are essentially admitting that wind and solar require a much larger portion of the labor force just to produce the same amount of energy – and that energy is also substantially more expensive! In fact, since the authors predict New York’s energy production will decline by more than one-third, the plan they’re advocating actually calls for using greater and greater shares of the available labor force to produce less and less energy.

Kevin Bullis from MIT’s Technology Review, while acknowledging that the theory warrants more study, also offers some words of caution about calls for an immediate, full-scale shift to renewables:

“Another key question about costs has to do with financing. When we’re talking about renewable energy, we’re talking essentially about paying for all of the power we’ll use over the lifetime of a solar panel upfront. The cost savings from efficiency measures also require an upfront investment. The cost and availability of financing will have a big impact on the cost per kilowatt hour of renewable energy, or whether battery-powered vehicles pay for themselves in fuel savings.

“And a big unknown is just how much it will cost to integrate huge amounts of intermittent renewable sources of energy to create reliable power. The New York study gestures to this problem, but the methods proposed are untested on a large scale, and the challenge will vary considerably depend on renewable resources in a given region. In some parts of the world, doldrums set in for entire seasons, making wind power a terrible option.”

Conclusion

As Andy Revkin observed, the study is interesting as a “thought experiment.” So is smoking pot, and watching videos like this. But real world facts contradict the authors’ assertions on too many occasions to think that this plan is a viable and legitimate course to take, for New York or anyone else. The fact that the authors had to use some of the worst research available on natural gas emissions – ignoring the climate and air quality benefits that natural gas is delivering and will continue to deliver in the process – to justify their arguments is perhaps the most revealing part of the whole study.

For Natural Gas in the Northeast, First You Need the Pipe
Northeastern states are suffering from a “natural gas trap,” The New York Times reported last week -- one in which residents are forced to weather not only the winter chills, but also the wildly unpredictable market for natural gas supplies. Electricity prices are rising, and to The Times, the blame for that rests squarely on the region’s “extreme reliance on natural gas.” But if we dig a little deeper into the Times’ report, we find a pretty important fact: the need for additional infrastructure, including “the inadequacy of existing pipelines,” is actually the biggest problem.

Steve
Spokesman

Northeastern states are suffering from a “natural gas trap,” The New York Times reported last week — one in which residents are forced to weather not only the winter chills, but also the wildly unpredictable market for natural gas supplies. Electricity prices are rising, and to The Times, the blame for that rests squarely on the region’s “extreme reliance on natural gas.”

Of course, we know low natural gas prices have allowed folks across the country to spend less of their hard earned money (billions of dollars, in fact) on heating and electricity. Heck, even President Obama, in his recent State of the Union address, said that we’re producing abundant supplies of clean natural gas, and “nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.”

Why is the Northeast so different, then?

If we dig a little deeper into the Times’ report, we find a pretty important fact: the need for additional infrastructure, including “the inadequacy of existing pipelines,” is actually the bigger problem. The much bigger problem.

It sounds so darn simple, but it’s worth explaining: To get natural gas to market, we have to build pipelines. And in order to build those pipelines, companies must gain approval from several different regulatory authorities. The most notable of these is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which requires a very public process that solicits comments from all interested parties. During these comment periods, the commission considers a range of issues, including potential environmental impacts.

It’s also worth noting that the industry is proposing – right now – to build pipelines with literally billions of cubic feet per day of new natural gas capacity. Some of these have gained FERC approval, but others have fallen victim to delays, which in turn postpone construction of the infrastructure necessary to deliver natural gas to consumers.

What causes these delays is really a variety of factors, ranging from all-too-common bureaucracy and institutional stasis within regulatory agencies, to the always challenging task of raising the capital required to finance the projects. But pipeline companies are also met with opposition, typically led by well-funded environmental groups, to literally every project they propose.

Often times, this opposition goes beyond simple NIMBYism and manifests itself in courtrooms, with groups like Earthjustice bringing lawsuits on behalf of a coterie of activists to stop construction. Part of the FERC approval process also includes public comment periods, during which environmental groups flood submission boxes with form letters and assertions of future impacts, regardless of whether those theoretical damages are even plausible.

Indeed, the same groups that have led the charge to stop shale development are also trying to block the pipelines necessary to get that fuel to Northeast families. Their reasoning? If they can’t stop companies from producing natural gas, maybe they can at least prevent them from actually selling it to consumers who want to buy it.

For example, the Northeast Supply Link, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co., would bring natural gas to Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. It has a capacity of 250 million cubic feet (MMCF) per day. But in 2011, as reported by a local newspaper, the Sierra Club did its level best to stop the project:

“Many area residents in attendance as well as a representative from the Sierra Club’s New Jersey Chapter said they are skeptical that there is sufficient demand for natural gas, especially in a weak economy, to warrant construction of the proposed pipeline.” (emphasis added)

Although the project was eventually approved by FERC, this example is instructive. A major environmental organization suggested there was not sufficient natural gas demand in the region to warrant construction of a pipeline. But we know demand has been increasing in the Northeast; in fact, increasing demand is what prompted the latest New York Times report. Right?

Here are some more:

The MARC I Pipeline, which would be built by the Central New York Oil and Gas Company, has a stated capacity of 550 MMCF per day. It was also approved by FERC, but not before being challenged by Earthjustice and other environmental groups.

The Northeast Upgrade Project, with approximately 630 MMCF per day of capacity, is facing efforts by environmental groups to get a federal court to halt construction. Perhaps bowing to those special interests, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) is also trying to force a reroute.

During a hearing last fall about the Constitution Pipeline (capacity: approximately 640 MMCF per day), one local opponent went so far as to suggest the project would destroy the United States:

“Kristina Turechek of Oneonta, N.Y., told the panel approval would consign portions of America to a ‘third-world nation’ and turn the nation backward. Other opponents yelled, cursed or called for the arrest of gas industry executives.”

Spectra Energy is also in the process right now of constructing a $1.2 billion pipeline (capacity: 800 MMCF/d) that, once finished (Nov. 2013 is the current target), will help feed growing demand in New York City and elsewhere across the metro region. Estimates suggest the pipeline would help save customers more than $650 million per year in energy costs. Amazingly, the project has even earned the full-throated support of the League of Conservation Voters, in addition to picking up Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement and the support of a dozens of other local civic and labor leaders. Playing to type, and right on cue, the Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch and others of that ilk continue to file lawsuits (all to this point have failed) aimed at stopping construction from moving forward.

These are, of course, only a snapshot of projects and the efforts to oppose their construction. Once in operation (if they are not tangled up in lawsuits), these pipelines alone would increase the region’s capacity by nearly 2.9 billion cubic feet (BCF) per day. To put that in perspective, in 2009, the two large natural gas distribution companies that serve New York City delivered a combined average of about 1.3 BCF per day to the city’s customers.

FERC also maintains a list of major pipelines awaiting approval, and demand is large enough in the Northeast that companies are constantly making new plans to grow regional infrastructure.

This is not to say that environmental groups are necessarily the biggest contributor to the region’s energy woes. To be sure, a diverse energy mix is important, much like the wisdom we gained from our parents that we should not “put all of our eggs in one basket.” The Times report indicates that the same mentality should be adopted by the Northeast.

Nor is it the case that utilities are uninterested in having a diversity of supply, either. Remember, New York has been delaying a decision about whether to allow responsible shale development for four years. A report for New York City, meanwhile, found that “Marcellus Shale gas production will have a significant effect on pipeline flows across the United States and in the Northeast.” Delaying shale development, by extension, places even more unnecessary constraints on the supplies of energy that consumers demand.

Who’s also leading the fight against diverse energy supplies? The same folks who have avoided culpability in delaying, opposing, or even blocking progress throughout the region.

To wit: Riverkeeper, an environmental organization in New York, wrote in the New York Times in 2010 that the state should shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant and replace it with a natural gas-fired plant. Ironically, Riverkeeper is also leading the charge to oppose responsible natural gas development in New York, and has even dispatched people across the country to try to undermine the safety record of hydraulic fracturing. As you probably could have guessed, Riverkeeper has also voiced opposition to natural gas pipelines.

Nationwide, natural gas and nuclear power generate approximately 50 percent of our electricity. But with environmental groups trying to take both of those off the table (along with coal, which generates the bulk of the remaining electricity), how can we possibly expect to meet growing energy demand?

Regardless of the source of the delay, areas such as the Northeast that need new pipelines are not getting them. That’s not because natural gas is a flawed energy option, and it’s certainly not due to a lack of interest in building pipelines. Companies are continuing to explore options for additional capacity – all the while dealing with irrational activist opposition. And given the fluctuating regulatory framework in New York, the barrier of uncertainty also casts an enormous shadow over future investment.

To understand the effect, we need to understand the causes. Unfortunately, The Times chose not to examine the latter, even though that story is clearly worth telling.

Shale and HF: A 50 State Jobs Plan
When we talk about shale development, states like Maine and Connecticut aren’t normally a part of the conversation. But this week, a new report shows that the benefits of shale development extend all across the nation – even in states without any actual shale resources to speak of.

Dana
Staff Geologist

When we talk about shale development, states like Maine and Connecticut aren’t normally a part of the conversation. But this week, a new report shows that the benefits of shale development extend all across the nation – even in states without any actual shale resources to speak of.

The second stage of a study co-sponsored by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy takes an in-depth look at the state-by-state economic contributions of shale development. Here are some of the key findings:

By 2015, shale and unconventional energy will be responsible for 2.5 million jobs; by 2020, 3 million jobs; and by 2035, 3.5 million jobs

In 2012, shale energy development was responsible for $62 billion in tax revenue

Between now and 2035, shale energy development is expected to contribute more than $2.5 trillion in total tax revenue—about half of which will go to the federal government, which last we checked was trying to formulate long-term policies to reduce a mammoth national debt (hint, hint!)

Overall, between now and 2035, the energy industry will invest more than $5.1 trillion in energy development in the United States.

Certainly some welcomed news for the American economy, and even better news for state coffers. Producing states have seen a surge in employment with tens or even hundreds of thousands of new jobs coming online. In Texas, shale development has created over 575,000 jobs to date, which is expected to grow to nearly 930,000 in 2020. Close behind is Pennsylvania with 102,600 jobs, California with 96,500, Louisiana with 78,900 and Colorado with 77,600. And by 2020 those numbers all nearly double. No wonder USA TODAY found that “of all the places that America’s new jobs are, the emerging energy business, directly or indirectly, might be responsible for more of them than almost anything else.”

And as for revenues, production is generating billions of dollars for state’s, allowing for new (and much needed) investment in schools, hospitals, roadways and more. In California, 2012 production generated nearly $3 billion in taxes for state and federal coffers, which is roughly the equivalent of 10 percent of the state’s deficit. Colorado also saw $3 billion brought into the state, Louisiana $2.5 billion, and North Dakota a whopping $6.8 billion – with expected growth to $13 billion in 2020.

Even non-producing states are seeing major benefits as a result of shale development. As the report highlights, “less well-known are the economic benefits that accrue to non-producing states that lack oil and gas resources but nonetheless host firms that sell goods and services that are critical to the lengthy supply chain supporting unconventional oil and gas development.” Some of the biggest winners are New York with 44,400 jobs, Illinois with 38,600, Michigan with 37,800, Missouri 37,700, and Florida 36,500. Even Connecticut is seeing growth with 8,300 jobs in the state already supported by production, and an estimated 14,100 by 2035. And with many of those states having shale deposits of their own, it’s only a matter of time before even more job opportunities find their way to areas in desperate need of them.

From new public revenues to jobs for American workers, shale development is truly reinvigorating the American economy – even where we don’t expect it. Make sure to check out the Chamber’s rollover map to see how shale may be bringing these benefits to your state today.

Read more:

ISSUE ALERT: Shale Putting America Back In Motion (10/24)

ISSUE ALERT: Development of Shale has Saved Consumers $250 Billion Since ’09 (5/29)

EID-ILLINOIS: Hydraulic Fracturing Could Create 47,000 New Illinois Jobs (12/13)

A Wealth Transfer We Can Get Behind
From reviving local steel mills in blue collar communities to supporting family businesses, responsible shale development is transforming and reshaping our economy for the better. And according to an analysis by USA TODAY, oil and natural gas development is also rapidly increasing personal income in small towns – reversing a decade’s long trend and shifting significant wealth toward rural areas of the country that certainly can use the boost.

JD
Communications Director

From reviving local steel mills in blue collar communities to supporting family businesses, responsible shale development is transforming and reshaping our economy for the better. And according to an analysis by USA TODAY, oil and natural gas development is also rapidly increasing personal income in small towns – reversing a decade’s long trend and shifting significant wealth toward rural areas of the country that certainly can use the boost.

To reach this conclusion, USA TODAY examined Bureau of Economic Analysis data from 2007 to 2011. Over this period, individuals in metropolitan areas saw their income decrease, on average, by 3.5 percent. Their rural counterparts, meanwhile, saw their incomes rise by 3.8 percent – thanks in part to oil and gas development in the Southwest, Mountain States and Midcontinent.

Bill Connors, President of the Boise Metro Area Chamber of Commerce, summed up the situation nicely: “Give us a little shale, and we’ll show some pretty good income growth, too.”

The trend is especially prevalent when you take a closer look at statistics from North Dakota. According to the review, six of the top 10 counties in the United States experiencing wage growth right now are located above the Bakken Shale, which has also helped that state achieve a nation-leading three percent unemployment rate – essentially, full-employment. In fact, jobs are so plentiful in North Dakota that fast food restaurants in towns like Williston are paying more than $15/hour and offering signing bonuses to attract new staff.

The juxtaposition between income levels in rural and metropolitan areas is especially striking. USA TODAY found that Sutton County, Texas – a major oil producing county with a population of only about 4,000 – saw average wages and benefits double over the time period studied, with individuals receiving an average salary of $115,775 during 2011. Only Manhattan, New York – the financial center of the United States and arguably the world – was able to eclipse this level of compensation.

If this story sounds familiar, it should. Last year, a study by Sentier Research found that seven of the top 10 states that experienced increases in household income during the Great Recession were states where oil and natural gas development is a significant contributor to the economy.

But shale development isn’t just increasing pre-existing wages; it’s also creating millions of new jobs. According to the World Economic Forum, the oil and natural gas industry created nearly one in 10 of all new jobs in the United States last year. This, in turn, translates to significant positive impacts in communities where development is taking place. In 2011, for example, Pennsylvania was home to the 7th fastest growing metropolitan area in the nation (Williamsport, PA; 7.8 percent growth) and also two of the top ten growing counties in the United States, where employment grew by 4.3 percent (Washington County) and 4.2 percent (Butler County).

These significant benefits, combined with residents gaining increased understanding of the safe practices of America’s oil and natural gas industry, are also a big reason for the amazing level of support for increased energy development. Need proof? Polling conducted after the recent presidential election found that a strong majority of voters, 94 percent of those surveyed, believe expanded oil and natural gas development is important for our nation’s economic and energy security.

Is there any other issue – absent a call for more hilarious cat videos on YouTube – for which Americans would voice support even approaching 94 percent?

With reports like these it’s understandable why residents in a state like New York – which is home to many struggling small towns above the Marcellus Shale – are becoming increasingly frustrated by Governor Cuomo’s repeated delays in approving shale development. Little wonder, too, why voters in that state took their frustration to the ballot box and voted against candidates calling for more delays or even outright bans. Also worth mentioning: the Empire State hosts the nation’s 10^th highest unemployment rate and one of the nation’s highest property tax burdens.

So, in a nutshell, the safe development of America’s shale resources is not only helping to make the United States more economically competitive, it’s also reviving the same small businesses and communities that continue to make our nation great. The next time activists try to block development, maybe we should ask them a simple question: Whose side are you really on?

Finger Lakes Region Has Been Developing Oil & Gas For Decades
While Pennsylvania continues to reap the benefits of shale gas development, New York again gets hit with another delay in the regulations they have been waiting on for more than four years. The Department of Environmental Conservation will miss the November 29th Deadline they set to have the regulations completed. The most ironic part about this constant feet dragging is the oil and gas industry has been operating safely in New York since 1821, when the first commercially produced well was drilled in Fredonia. Yes, the industry has been developing in New York for a long time including in the wine-rich Finger Lakes region.

Joe
Marcellus Field Director

New York continues to wait for Governor Cuomo to make a decision about whether to bring shale gas development into the state. Many who oppose natural gas development don’t know that it has successfully been done in the state and around the Finger Lakes extensively for years.

While Pennsylvania continues to reap the benefits of shale gas development, New York again gets hit with another delay in the regulations they have been waiting on for more than four years. The Department of Environmental Conservation will miss the November 29th Deadline they set to have the regulations completed. The most ironic part about this constant feet dragging is the oil and gas industry has been operating safely in New York since 1821, when the first commercially produced well was drilled in Fredonia. Yes, the industry has been developing in New York for a long time including in the wine-rich Finger Lakes region.

A majority of the Finger Lakes wine region lies on top of the Marcellus Shale, a formation currently being developed over the border in Pennsylvania. It is debatable at this time if the Finger Lakes will see development in the Marcellus Shale due to certain depth regulations in the current draft SGEIS, but, nonetheless, it has been a hotbed of opposition to the state moving forward.

The biggest concern for hydraulic fracturing to jump the border lies with the wine industry and their concern over whether the oil and gas industry can coincide with the winery industry. This “Wine and Brine” campaign has even led to some of the largest consumers of propane and natural gas in the state, the wineries, opposing propane storage at historically proven locations. Here is some of the reasoning behind their fears for co-existence.

Some grape growers fear that if shale gas drilling, or fracking, is allowed in this region of postcard-perfect hills and crystal-clear lakes, the muddy well sites and rumbling trucks will not only endanger the environment but threaten the Finger Lakes’ reputation for pristine beauty.

In their view, wine does not pair well with drilling. – Boston Globe Article

What many people don’t understand is that there is already development in the Finger Lakes Region. Most, if not all, of the existing wells are vertical as opposed to horizontally developed, which has a greater surface land disturbance because of the number of wells needed to produce the same amount of gas. Yet, despite this more noticeable difference, most people don’t even know these wells surround their vineyards and wineries.

: Gas & Oil Wells Co-Existing with Finger Lake Vineyards & Wineries

Provided above is a section from a map of currently producing oil and gas wells and their proximity to wineries and vineyards between Seneca and Cayuga Lakes. Horizontal gas development would, of course, significantly reduce the amount of surface disturbance to extract the same amount of gas and increase the separation between wells as well as wineries, thereby reducing the impacts, whatever they may be, from what already exist. Yet, here is what we hear from some wineries:

‘‘If the drilling does come to the Finger Lakes, what I can see happening in a heartbeat given a couple of accidents, all of the sudden the consumers are going to say, ‘Are your vineyards near any wells?’’’ said Peter Saltonstall of King Ferry Winery by Cayuga Lake. ‘‘If people start thinking something is wrong with it, then we are sunk. That’s something I stay up nights and worry about.’’ – Boston Globe Article

Winery owners should already be answering the question, “Are your vineyards near any wells?” with a yes, based on the proximity of many of these wineries to gas and oil wells. They should already know the impacts, because they’ve been living with them for years, but, of course, they don’t because the impacts are minimal. In fact, some vineyard owners already have gas wells on their properties helping to provide ancillary sources of income to cover the holding costs and keep the properties in their favored use as vineyards, as open space and as tourism attractions.

Winery owners also worry about tourism being negatively impacted by the temporary sight of rigs and truck traffic, but the reality is that rigs are temporary as well as few and far between. As for the traffic? Well, try to get through Watkins Glen on race day. If the area can survive that traffic, the additional from natural gas development is a walk in the park.

Importantly, unlike Pennsylvania’s situation, there will be an ad-valorem tax implemented in New York if and when horizontal shale gas development comes across the border. The ad-valorem tax will flow money right into the local community where the well is located to do things that will improve the area, support tourism and stimulate the economy. This New York State property tax will kick in as soon as a New York well is in production. Please watch the following presentation on the ad-valorem.

Pennsylvania has proven to us that this process can be done safely. Given the history of gas development in New York, especially in the Finger Lake region, and its prolific nature, there is no reason the wine industry and the natural gas industry cannot co-exist together.

*UPDATE* Cuomo Comments Suggest Fix May Be in on Shale in NY
The past few weeks have left many in New York wondering if Gov. Andrew Cuomo actually wants to see responsible Marcellus development move forward in his state. Unfortunately, if the comments he made on Tuesday’s edition of the Fred Dicker show are any indication, it’d be tough to conclude that he genuinely does.

JD
Communications Director

UPDATE (10:00 am ET, 11/21/2012): A must-read editorial by the New York Post provides a potential motive behind Governor Cuomo’s recent comments on the Fred Dicker Show and continued inaction on the state’s SGEIS. The paper is the first outlet to note that the Governor may be intentionally slow-walking the regulations so they are never released. According to the editorial: “this delay could invite another public comment period — translating into further delay, possibly leading to the state’s four-year-plus moratorium on fracking never being lifted.” The Post editorial also includes a few of the worst nuggets from the governor’s interview on Fred’s show yesterday and highlights how those comments are at odds with statements made by officials at the U.S. EPA and just about every other credible source that has examined hydraulic fracturing.

- Original post, November 20, 2012 -

The past few weeks have left many in New York wondering if Gov. Andrew Cuomo actually wants to see responsible Marcellus development move forward in his state. Unfortunately, if the comments he made on Tuesday’s edition of the Fred Dicker show are any indication, it’d be tough to conclude that he genuinely does.

In relaying a question from a listener, Dicker asked the governor if he could understand the frustration that many New York residents are dealing with right now over a Marcellus review process being led by the state that’s been delayed more times than a LaGuardia flight on Christmas Eve – thus denying tens of thousands of hard-working residents the ability to produce (and earn much-needed income off) the minerals they own. Here is a key excerpt from that interview (full podcast available here):

Dicker: “There is legitimate frustration out there, probably on both sides, but homeowners and others down in the Southern Tier who hoped that this could be getting under way, people looking for jobs, unemployment is very high down there. Certainly you can understand their frustration.”

Cuomo: “Look you have it on both sides right. People need jobs and people don’t want to be poisoned.” (50:26)

Dicker: “But there is no evidence of poisoning, have you seen any in Pennsylvania?”

Cuomo: “That’s the whole question right. There’s fear of poisoning.” (50:34)

Dicker: “There’s an answer to it though: fear is artificial in the view of a great many people including myself. The U.S. EPA has said it found no evidence of any water supplies being damaged.”

Cuomo: “Yeah and there is a great number of people who say the jobs aren’t going to happen either.” (50:44)

Dicker: “And you believe them?”

Cuomo: “Well, I am just saying, there is an argument on both sides.” (50:48)

Dicker: “Not necessarily of equal weight though.”

Cuomo: “Well, not to you.” (50:54)

Dicker: “No, not to experts. Not to the U.S. EPA, not to Joe Martens who said it could be done safely.”

Note here how the governor’s response to EPA’s finding that fracturing technology is safe was not to rebut the notion, but rather to dodge it entirely – as if Dicker had not even uttered the concept. It’s as if the governor was rattled by scientific evidence and had to find something – anything – to change the subject. (It’s also worth noting that it was the state’s own assessment that predicted 50,000 jobs could be created from shale development, so Cuomo was effectively changing the subject to argue against his own administration.)

But in this back and forth, Dicker makes an important point: The only folks putting forth arguments against hydraulic fracturing right now are the folks whose opposition to shale development is based on ideology – not on science. Maybe that’s why the USA TODAY noted in a front-page article this week that public acceptance of shale development continues to grow – especially in those areas where real development is actually taking place.

Another reason for this shift in public opinion may be related to the steady stream of comments and testimonials on the safety of the fracturing process that continue to flow from folks who know a thing or two about the issue – and aren’t exactly shills for the oil and gas industry, you feel us? Here are just a few of the ones that really drive the anti-shale folks mad:

Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” (April 2012)

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior: “There’s a lot of hysteria that takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking, and you see that happening in many of the states…It can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.” (February 2012)

John Hanger, Former Pa. DEP Secretary: “We’ve never had one case of fracking fluid going down the gas well and coming back up and contaminating someone’s water well.” (2012)

Dr. Stephen Holditch, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University: “I have been working in hydraulic fracturing for 40+ years and there is absolutely no evidence hydraulic fractures can grow from miles below the surface to the fresh water aquifers.” (October 2011)

Dr. Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University: “Fracturing fluids have not contaminated any water supply and with that much distance to an aquifer, it is very unlikely they could.” (August 2011)

U.S. Dept. of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council: “[B]ased on over sixty years of practical application and a lack of evidence to the contrary, there is nothing to indicate that when coupled with appropriate well construction; the practice of hydraulic fracturing in deep formations endangers ground water. There is also a lack of demonstrated evidence that hydraulic fracturing conducted in many shallower formations presents a substantial risk of endangerment to ground water.” (May 2009)

You can also view the list of nearly a dozen state regulatory agencies affirming that hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate ground water.

So then: According to Governor Cuomo, claims made by the likes of Yoko Ono, Lady Gaga, Josh Fox, and various other groups ideologically committed to shutting down responsible energy development are on equal footing with the experts and conclusions listed above. Is that what he’s saying here? Does he really believe that? Or has he already decided that shale won’t be given a go in NY, having made the political calculation that, since no one wants to spend $10 million drilling a well for $2 natural gas right now, he’ll just shift the blame for shale’s demise over to people at his health office.

Speaking of: Cuomo’s comments today come on the heels of news leaked (not even released, leaked) last week by New York’s Department of Health about the academics it has chosen to review the state’s environmental study on shale — Lynn Goldman (George Washington University); Richard Jackson (University of California-Los Angeles); and John Adgate (Colorado School of Public Health).

EID decided to do some research into what these “experts” have said about hydraulic fracturing (see our letter submitted to the New York Department of Health here). It didn’t take but a few quick searches in Google to uncover that these individuals have made some pretty inflammatory (and baseless) accusations about hydraulic fracturing, all of which cast a disturbing light on how they view shale development.

Here are a few examples:

Dr. Lynn Goldman: “But along with the promise of economic benefits and a healthier planet comes the worry that the exponential growth in the industry is spawning troubling health risks in communities near fracking operations. These hazards include toxic chemicals in the water, polluted air, and even seismic activity caused by disposal of fracking waste waters. … “In addition, some of the chemicals — not just those added as part of the fracking process but also chemicals brought to the surface in the waste water — are linked to health problems such as disruption of the endocrine system or even cancer.” (Huffington Post, Oct. 24, 2012; emphasis added)

Dr. Richard Jackson: “Pick up any newspaper in any city in the world any day of the year; you will find a headline that involves health and environment. As I write this many states are grappling with the challenge of hydraulic fracturing of shale and other natural gas sources, and yes there is “fracking” in California. These most unregulated drilling processes numbering in the hundreds of thousands have impacts on air quality including global warming, drinking water and other waters, soils, air quality, and nearby populations including by noise. Fracking involves serious worker exposures and will likely cause silicosis and other lethal diseases. What we extract from the earth– methane, coal, mercury, metals and more–all eventually embed in the natural world and in our bodies. What we make to help grow food, control pests, move our cars and flameproof our computers; all these chemicals end up in the biosphere and in our children. How we build our communities shapes our energy use, socializing, and physical activity.” (Fielding School of Public Health, Introduction to UCLA Environmental Health Sciences Program; emphasis added)

Professor John Adgate: Adgate serves as the Chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH), which recently conducted a controversial health impact assessment that claimed natural gas operations would likely cause negative health impacts. Adgate was one of the contributing authors to that report.

NOTE: Energy In Depth previously identified at least eight significant errors that resulted in its flawed findings. Chief among these was that the study utilized air toxics data collected in Garfield County, Colo., between January 2008 and November 2010. Colorado updated its regulatory requirements for oil and gas systems in February 2009, and thus a large portion of the data used in forming the study’s conclusions represented an operating environment that no longer exists in the state. Additionally, the study utilized air samples taken within one mile of a major U.S. interstate (I-70) to determine emissions levels – notably benzene – from oil and natural gas development. This is problematic, as the U.S. EPA has found that most of the nation’s benzene emissions come from cars, trucks and other mobile sources and exposure levels are highest near major roads. The study also relied on flawed assumptions that exaggerated the emissions associated with drilling and completing new gas wells. As a result, the study’s conclusions dramatically inflated the health risks associated with natural gas development.

Because of these and many other errors, the assessment received strong criticism from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the study was decommissioned by the Garfield County commissioners in May 2011. The CSPH researchers claimed to have been working closely with Garfield County officials to collect their data, but the county’s chief environmental health official, Jim Rada, told the press he had “no knowledge” of what the researchers were even studying.

As the above examples attest, an individual could be forgiven if they assumed these recent actions were meant to derail, or at the very least significantly delay, the approval of responsible shale development in the Empire State – which is precisely what opponents of development want.

In fact, anti-hydraulic fracturing activists admitted as much in an Associated Press story on the Governor’s announcement today that the process would once again be delayed. The AP reported opponents were “cheered at word of the latest delay,” and Sandra Steingraber – a well-known opponent of hydraulic fracturing – even suggested the fix is already in.

“We are confident,” Ms. Steingraber said, “that a thorough, independent review of the health impacts of fracking will show it can’t be done safely.”

With Governor Cuomo’s statements and the state’s hand-picked review panel, one has to wonder if that’s not exactly what they’re going to get.

And that raises another important question: With the Governor looking out for the interests of Hollywood, rich musicians, and discredited activist groups, who is looking out for the unemployed upstate – the same folks who rejected “fracktivism” in the recent election and support responsible development?

Saving Precious Land Thanks to Natural Gas
Last week I sent a letter to the New York Times following their publication of an op-ed by Sean Lennon. It’s unfortunate that they wouldn’t run my letter – especially given our experience as real organic farmers and how that experience contrasts the assertions made by Mr. Lennon.

Kate Watson
Schoharie County, N.Y. Landowner

Last week I sent a letter to the New York Times following their publication of an op-ed by Sean Lennon. It’s unfortunate that they wouldn’t run my letter – especially given our experience as real organic farmers and how that experience contrasts the assertions made by Mr. Lennon. With that, my letter is below.

Saving Precious Land Thanks to Natural Gas, in response to: “Destroying Precious Land for Gas”

Sean Lennon recalls a cow he milked when he was young, then attempts to speak on behalf of all organic farmers to declare natural gas development will render the land unlivable.

What Sean describes isn’t true. I am an actual, organic farmer in upstate New York, and while Sean has milked one cow, I have milked dozens. The hobby he enjoyed briefly supports my livelihood.

Natural gas production doesn’t conflict with organic farming. A natural gas well takes up six acres of land, which sees activity for a few weeks. This modest requirement helps keep in production hundreds of acres that might otherwise be lost due to high taxes and costs.

My husband and I love our land as only farmers can, and we know farmers aren’t going to compromise their land for a fast profit. It’s time to move past the rhetoric and take advantage of this opportunity together.

Nationwide: No Change to Our Policies on Oil and Gas
Despite mistaken assertions and commentary made over the last several weeks, Nationwide has not issued any new guidelines nor taken any new positions regarding hydraulic fracturing or oil and gas development.

Eric Hardgrove
Media Director, Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Despite assertions made over the last several weeks, Nationwide has not issued any new guidelines nor taken any new positions regarding fracking.

With the increase in hydraulic fracking, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast, Nationwide evaluated our position (as we routinely do with any of our coverages) and decided not to make any changes in our long-standing position on exclusions related to drilling operations. An internal communication sharing an update on this review was drafted, without this broader context, and distributed to agents. This agent bulletin was then posted on Facebook and taken out of context. This post made it appear as if Nationwide had made an announcement, when in reality we simply decided to maintain an underwriting position we and most other carriers have held for years.

Nationwide has not changed its guidelines in regard to coverage of, or damage resulting from, oil and natural gas extraction activities, including hydrofracking. In addition, Nationwide will not be cancelling or non-renewing existing policies based solely upon the presence of gas leases, gas wells, or hydrofracking on the property.

Nationwide’s underwriting guidelines do not disqualify homeowners or farm policy coverage for homes or farm operations based solely on the presence of a gas lease in force on the property, the presence of gas drilling, or plans for gas drilling in the future.

Nationwide’s policy or treatment of this issue is common practice within the insurance industry, as traditional homeowners or farm owners insurance policies generally do not include coverage specific to the unique processes and activities of the oil/gas development process.

In the end, this “story” isn’t about one insurer. Rather, it’s about reiterating what is common insurance industry practice that traditional homeowners or farm owners policies generally do not anticipate or insure against the specific activities associated with oil and gas exploration.

UB Marcellus Study: The Numbers Don’t Lie
A large, multimillion dollar organization co-headquartered in New York and California is funneling money to a thumb-on-the-scale "research" campaign aimed at trying to shut down hydraulic fracturing. But the New York Times ignored all of that in a story purportedly about how money is influencing shale research.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that a deep-pocketed organization was financially underwriting the bulk of activities associated with a campaign to stop oil and gas development in America, including organizing and orchestrating research projects designed to attack 65 years of history, science and experience with respect to the safe use of hydraulic fracturing.

Now let’s stop pretending and recognize that everything we’ve described above is, in fact, happening, and the organization so-described is the Ithaca-based Park Foundation. Would that classify as news fit to print?

Not according to the New York Times, it isn’t.

What the Gray Lady does view as a story, however, is a fresh round of grumbling from opposition groups charging that a recently released paper on Marcellus regulation in Pennsylvania from the University at Buffalo is “biased” – and that, because of this paper, the entire university’s reputation is now at risk. You know, the same way Cornell’s reputation was reduced to a smoldering husk following the release of the now widely debunked Howarth and Ingraffea GHG papers.

Wait, what? Cornell’s doing just fine? Right, that’s what we thought.

Anyway, the report about which activists are screaming “bias!” (more on that later) was released last month by the University at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute. It found that even as natural gas development from the Marcellus Shale has increased in Pennsylvania in recent years, the number of environmental incidents has actually fallen on a per-well basis, and that New York’s proposed regulations would have prevented many if not all of those incidents from occurring in the Empire State.

But opponents say the opposite is the case, citing the increase in total violations in Pennsylvania as evidence that things are getting worse, not better.

The reality, though, is that the term “violation,” especially as it relates to oil and gas operations, suggests (at least through implication) an environmental problem. But most violations are actually administrative in nature and relate to the mountain of paperwork that must be filled out before, during, and after a well is drilled. These are logged as “violations,” but there’s obviously no environmental damage resulting from an unfilled box on a piece of paper submitted to the Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection.

According to the UB study, 62 percent of all violations were for “administrative or preventative reasons.” The study also points out that the number of violations constituting the remaining 38 percent is itself a bit misleading, as multiple violations often referred to the same incident. And as the folks at EID-Marcellus have previously observed, the number of violations per well has actually been decreasing in recent years.

But what activists claim — and for which the Times provided a lopsided forum — is that the types of violations don’t matter. To them, a misspelled word on a piece of paper is apparently an environmental catastrophe.

Of course, this isn’t the first time opponents have tried to skew violation data in their favor. But unfortunately for them, the whole truth continues to be a better barometer than the half truth they got the New York Times to promote.

What else did the Times leave out of its skewed attempt to connect the dots between funding and advocacy in shale development? Why, only the most obvious and blatant example: The Park Foundation.

Consider:

It was the Park Foundation that helped fund the thoroughly discredited movie Gasland, as well as multiple anti-shale efforts across the country.
It was the Park Foundation that funded the “study” from Duke University that tried to link Marcellus development with methane in private water wells. Both the former and current Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection have raised considerable questions about the validity of the paper.
It was the Park Foundation that funded the infamous Howarth “study” that suggested shale development was worse for the climate than coal. Independent experts, the U.S. Department of Energy, a study funded by the Sierra Club, and even the authors’ colleague at Cornell have all debunked Howarth’s conclusions.
It was the Park Foundation that funded the “study” about how Marcellus development will, someday, eventually, theoretically contaminate water supplies. Predictably, the study’s thesis is completely bogus.
It was the Park Foundation that funded the “study” concluding EPA’s draft report on Pavillion, Wyo., water quality was sound — even though the EPA itself has suspended peer review of that report in order to gather and analyze more data.
It was the Park Foundation that created an entirely new “research” organization dedicated to undermining shale development: Physicians, Scientists, & Engineers for Healthy Energy.

All of these efforts continue to draw media attention, despite each of them being thoroughly debunked by scientists, regulators, and independent experts. Yet all of this was also overlooked in a story purporting to examine how money can drive research. Of course, the Times likely doesn’t want to tell the ugly truth about an organization on which it relies for research, so it’s perhaps only fitting that the story had such a glaring omission.

There’s also something else worth pointing out here: Is it possible that opponents doth protest too much? Hearing “bias!” from anti-shale activists is not news, but rather the natural product of a desperate yet well-funded national campaign to deny science, deny evidence, and deny the truth as it tries to stay relevant. Participants cannot rely on scientific findings to support their claims (because there are none), so, when they’re not funneling money to friendly professors to score headlines, they speak in talking points (“bias,” “industry shill,” “hack,” etc.) and hope the public is too stupid to see what’s really going on.

A few notable examples:

The most recent University of Texas study that found there’s “no evidence” of hydraulic fracturing contaminating water? A local activist immediately suggested it was biased and funded by industry, which, of course, it was not, as a University spokesman quickly noted. (NOTE: The study was actually reviewed by the Environmental Defense Fund.)
What about the Secretary of Energy’s Shale Gas Subcommittee Report, which proposed a series of recommendations to continue safe and responsible shale development? Yep, they said the panel was biased.
State regulators, who have tightly and effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing for decades, are routinely maligned as “biased” for their supposed coziness with the industry.
Activists have even criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — the same entity they want to regulate hydraulic fracturing, mind you — for its multiple water tests in Dimock, Pa., each of which concluded the water was safe. The results weren’t what they wanted, so…shenanigans!

So, to recap: A large, multimillion dollar organization co-headquartered in New York and California is funneling money to a thumb-on-the-scale “research” campaign aimed at trying to shut down hydraulic fracturing. But the intrepid reporters at the Times write an 1,100-word story about how opponents of responsible energy production are, for the umpteenth time, accusing those with whom they disagree of being biased.

Amazing that no one seems to read newspapers anymore, isn’t it?

*UPDATE* 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...

UPDATE (4/6/2012, 1:15pm ET): Some intrepid research by the EID team has uncovered a meaningful critique of the Bamberger-Oswald paper, and the source is no slouch: Dr. Ian Rae, a professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia and a Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the United Nations Environment Programme, says the paper is “an advocacy piece” that suffers from poor referencing, and the authors themselves “cannot be regarded as experts” in the field in which they are commenting. Rae’s full comments about the paper can be found here, but we’ve excerpted the most significant items below:

“It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep…analysis of the data gathered to support its case.”
“The data in Table 2 are incomplete in that no dates or places are provided, and no references to other commentary on the events it reports, so it’s hard to assess the weight of the evidence. Surely there were reports to or by regulatory agencies. It could be that this is old evidence and that note has been taken of the hazards and appropriate regulations put in place to mitigate them. We just don’t know.”
“Contributions to the journal are said to be refereed, but the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent. For example, better refereeing would have forced the authors to provide the details I identified above as missing from their compilation. As well, it might also have curtailed some of the less-well supported statements and asked for more recent references to the scientific basis for expressions of concern that material dated to the 1960s and 1970s.”
“As far as I can see, neither [Bamberger nor Oswald] has a track record of investigation in environmental studies. This does not mean they are wrong to sound a note of concern, but it does mean that they cannot be regarded as experts in the field with broad experience and attainments.”
“I have not had time to read the articles in recent issues of the journal, but the titles show that they are advocacy pieces dealing with issues that are matters of concern, and for that reason are also extensively covered by other journals.”

—Original post from January 11, 2012—

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.

Poll: Americans Support Hydraulic Fracturing by More than 2-1 Margin
Americans consistently support more domestic energy development, and they also highly value a clean and well-protected environment. So it's of little surprise that a new poll released today shows that 57 percent of Americans support the use of hydraulic fracturing. Only 22 percent oppose the process, which means nationwide support outstrips opposition by a more than two-to-one margin.

Americans consistently support more domestic energy development, and they also highly value a clean and well-protected environment. So it’s of little surprise that a new poll released today shows that 57 percent of Americans support the use of hydraulic fracturing. Only 22 percent oppose the process, which means nationwide support outstrips opposition by a more than two-to-one margin.

The specific question asked:

“A process known as hydraulic fracturing, sometimes called fracking, is used to drill for oil and natural gas in shale oil reserves. Do you favor or oppose the use of fracking to produce more oil and natural gas in this country?”

The poll fits nicely with other recent surveys conducted that have found strong support for developing natural gas from shale. A survey by Harris Interactive, for example, found that despite “intense negative media focus,” 66 percent of Americans believe that the economic benefits of natural gas far outweigh any concerns about environmental impacts. A poll in October of last year found that 80 percent of Marylanders support natural gas production. In New York, more voters support hydraulic fracturing than oppose it, and in Pennsylvania, voters say — by a significant margin — that the economic benefits of drilling outstrip any perceived environmental impacts.

Nationwide, Americans strongly support more energy development and believe consumers will ultimately benefit.

*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 »

Just The Facts: Anti-Marcellus Activist’s Distortions About Natural Gas Jobs Unsupported by the Facts

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 »

Albany After Dark

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?

Return to Sender

McMahon Letter to Gov. Paterson Decrying Hydraulic Fracturing Short on Facts, Long on Hysteria

Keep Reading »