Natural Gas Is a Long Haul Proposition
Victor Furman
Chenango County Landowner
A recent viewpoint article in the Binghamton Press by EID’s Tom Shepstone lays out the potential benefits of natural gas development for the Southern Tier of New York based on a comparison with what’s been happening along the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania. You can read the original remarks on which the article is based here. This argument was met with some heavy skepticism by a Vestal Residents for Safe Energy (VeRSE) member who suggested the jobs would be short-term and mostly taken by temporary workers from outside the area, while the industry contaminates the air and water. Let me, a layman who has studied this issue in depth, attempt to correct the record.
I cannot help but note the Vestal Residents for Safe Energy wants it both ways when playing with the numbers. Not so long, some members were on O2E TV in Binghamton telling anyone who would listen that over 20,000 natural gas wells would be developed in the first year after New York finally allowed permitting to begin. This was, obviously, an effort to inflate industrialization fears. It certainly would be quite a feat to develop that many wells given there are only about 250 rigs in all of Pennsylvania and, since 2008, less than 5,000 wells have been developed there, an average of 1,250 per year or so. Pennsylvania’s production over four years is a little less then 20 percent of VeRSE’s prediction for New York’s first year alone. When it serves their purpose, VeRSE seems all too happy to claim huge impacts,
How many gas wells New York gets is anybody’s guess, but one thing we know is it will not occur all at once as VeRSE imagines. There is work for over 50 years just keeping the gas companies and all their vendors busy, along with lots of jobs. Therefore, there will be truck driving jobs, heavy equipment operator jobs, concrete pad jobs, gravel pit jobs, road crew jobs, DEC jobs, well site inspector jobs, pipe fitter jobs, wielding jobs, railroad jobs, road repair jobs, landscaping jobs and forestry jobs. Then, there will be support jobs such as hose manufacturing, diesel mechanics, heavy equipment repair technicians, planners, public record recorders, permit issuers, land deed searchers and so on; the list goes on and on.

Well Pad Location in Pennsylvania
VeRSE asks what happens to the gas-related jobs after the gas companies, water haulers and others have left the area. Interestingly, that’s not a question asked of other businesses. No one asked that of IBM, for example, or Singer, for that matter. That is always a concern with any industry, but it is one we won’t have to worry about for another half-century or so because that’s how long we will, at minimum, be developing this resource and, after we develop the Marcellus, we still have the Utica Shale and other formations under us to explore. The jobs connected with this industry are ones that will not go overseas like those at IBM, Singer Link, Singer Sewing, GE, EJ’s, Stow Manufacturing, Buckbee Myers and so many others that have left our area. Why? Because the resource is here, not overseas. Developing natural gas is the one job out there, maybe the only one, that’s utterly impossible to outsource.
VeRSE also asks “What steps has the gas industry taken to prevent more of the air and water contamination — now well-documented by the Environmental Protection Agency in Wyoming, West Virginia and Pennsylvania — that comes with fracking?” This is a typical of questions asked by anti’s – full of assertions, assumptions and presumtions that have no merit. The geology and development techniques in the Pavillion, Wyoming, area differ greatly from those in New York. Also, the EPA findings there are so highly questionable the studies are being redone anyway, so there goes the VeRSE case that was supposedly so “well documented.”
Natural gas is cleaner then coal, oil and even nuclear, which is why organizations such as the national Sierra Club have come out in favor of natural gas development in the United States and the President has even endorsed it. The VCSE talks of water contamination sources but Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the same EPA that VeRSE touts as a source when convenient, has openly and recently stated there have been no reported findings of water contamination caused by high volume hydraulic fracturing.
There are cases of methane migration in some areas, but New York State has added strict regulations that were so good in protecting ground water that over 5,000 gas wells have been developed in and around the Jamestown aquifer in NY and not one problem has ever been reported. There were open pits in Pavillion that held flowback and which are are not allowed in New York. Those pits, regrettably, were allowed to be buried after the evaporation process was completed and it is possible but not conclusive that this is what caused contamination to some aquifers in that instance. This will never happen in New York as we will have mandated closed loop drilling.
Natural gas development has come a long way over the last 32 years, and even more so in the last four years. We have stepped away from open pits, reduced truck traffic by piping in the water, reduced water usage by recycling (e.g., Chesapeake Energy and several mother operators now recycle 100 percent of their flowback), we have a closed loop drilling system that enables drilling without exposing flowback to the environment and so many other improvements. If you looked at a 1980 Lincoln Town car today and compared it with a 2012 Town Car, the improvements and technology would stun you in difference.
All of this leaves me with a question of my own. I have been debating natural gas development for four years now and have attended hundreds of information meetings but have never seen the same enthusiasm from the anti-gas side as the pro-gas side, except when the anti’s are standing outside in protest. Why is this? Could it be because the anti’s are forever stuck in negativism, forever trapped in the position of opposing rather than proposing, forever blinded to the future by their insistence on the risk it involves? It’s revealing that VeRSE dismisses the value of trucking jobs to the Southern Tier. Maybe this whole gas thing is just too long a haul for them.
S Selbin
Posted at 17:32h, 17 MarchThis article is not accurate. I can’t speak to the entire article, but the fourth paragraph from the end of the article makes a series of inaccurate statements. If all aspects of natural gas production from the drill site to the home are taken into account natural gas is NOT clearner than oil or coal; it equally or more polluting than oil or coal. Sierra Club does not suppor natural gas development and the new SC Director has made that clear. The EPA has confirmed a case of water contamination in Wyoming.
Tom
Posted at 05:23h, 18 MarchNo, you are incorrect. The idea that gas is less clean has been debunked numerous times, including by Cornell itself. It was advanced by committed antis Howart and Ingraffea, whose work is completely shoddy and now exposed by their own colleagues. Secondly, the Sierra Club has, indeed, advocated gas. It is local chapters in places such as New York that have been its voice against gas in the popular press. Finally, the EPA has not confirmed a case in Wyoming. Those early results have been rejected and new studies are underway. The EPA early results were draft in nature and had many problems. The agency is now effectively starting over. You are not keeping up with the facts.
Susan Owens
Posted at 12:58h, 21 MarchThe Sierra club does not advocate for gas, Karol Pope may have advocated but the cub is not and has not advocated for replacement of one fossil fuel for another, they are all polluting and need to be eliminated.
As per the club’s policy on energy “While natural gas may burn cleaner than other fossil fuels, it is still a fossil fuel and it is far from clean. Natural gas exploration, production, and transportation causes significant damage to communities and ecosystems, including air and water pollution, surface disturbance, and waste disposal impacts. The production, transport and burning of natural gas remains a significant source of CO2 and methane. (See separate hydrofracking policy)
Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, September 16, 2006; amended February 21,
2009; May 16, 2009, and July 25, 201
Tom
Posted at 20:25h, 21 MarchIs the Sierra club saying not to develop natural gas? I don’t think so. Moreover, what it says about gas can be said about any form of energy.