Dear Shale Protestor,

Let’s assume that when the music stops Governor Cuomo is holding the hot potato.  The Governor is going to make the decision about whether shale development can go forward in New York state.  Notwithstanding the pyrotechnic protest on display here, the decision to go forward or stay stuck is going to come down to the decision of a single person, the Governor. 

Governor Cuomo has long said that if it does come down to his decision, science, not politics, will guide him.  So which will it be if he tells the state’s top scientists to go back to the drawing board after four-and-a-half years of study?

Does he not know that the United States has drilled over a million oil and gas wells, the majority of which are fractured?  Does he not know that the United States has also extracted more oil and gas over a longer period of time than any other country in the world?  If we don’t have enough data to make a scientific decision, we never will.  Period.  Full stop.

Industry has long said look at neighboring states where shale is being developed to gage the real costs and true benefits of fracturing.

Pennsylvania and Ohio, for example, have lots of jobs and thriving economies.  The water is not polluted.  The air is not fouled.  These states have large, working manufacturing sectors, and industrial activity is associated with prosperity.  Governors Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania and John Kasich of Ohio, both Republicans, were fast followers into shale development.  

Even in states like Illinois and California, governors tout the benefits and press legislators to pass newly written regulations.  They want shale development and the economic boon it provides  Admittedly, Governors Pat Quinn of Illinois and Jerry Brown of California, both Democrats, have motivation. The financial condition of their states ranks near in comparison with all fifty states nationwide.  

In contrast, here in New York the industrial base moved out 50-years ago, contributing to New York City’s almost bankruptcy in 1975.  Rebuilding a post-industrial economy took two decades and upstate New York never returned.  New Yorkers are skeptical of industrial jobs — natural resource extraction jobs in particular — criticizing them for boom and bust.

There is another unique consideration here, too.  Governor Cuomo has the majority of the national environmental movement sitting on his shoulder.  Most environmentalist organizations headquarter here.

Clearly, Governor Cuomo has a lot on his mind.  Yet, if permits are to be delayed once again, I would say ask some pointed questions and get some detailed answers, such as:

·         Is there such a thing as a carbon free economy? Where is it? Can it scale to New York size?

·         What is the fastest way to reduce carbon emissions? Where is the proof?

·         Exactly how will water be polluted?  Can it be fixed? Who pays for the damage?

·         Exactly how will air be fouled? Can it be fixed? Who pays for the damage?

·         How much electricity will barns and building rooftops generate? How much does it cost?

·         How many wind turbines need to be sited? Locate them on a map.

·         How many transmission lines need to be run? Locate them on a map.

·         How are intermittent wind and solar backed up?  If intermittent electricity sources require 100% back-up what are the savings?

·         And, why is no other governor (with the exception of Vermont, a state that is the size of a large national park with no hydrocarbon resources that banned fracking) having so much difficulty making a decision?

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

Protestors are doing victory laps here in New York.  Today’s vote in the New York State Assembly likely has won them another multi-year delay of high volume hydraulic fracturing permits. The delay is necessary they claim because potential health impacts were not adequately studied in the Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, now four and a half years in the making.  Delay is the politically acceptable way to dodge the issue, which will not go away.

Politicians know that the state cannot function without natural gas — after all New York is America’s fourth largest consumer and consumption is increasing as New York City converts boilers running on fuel oil to natural gas.  Politicians also know that there is no real alternative.  New York is not particularly sunny nor is it particularly windy.  New Yorkers also don’t like transmission lines or pipelines or most new infrastructure.  But, cowed by celebrity protestors, and essentially left on their own while industry focused in other states, politicians caved. 

Even Sean Lennon admits that the one generation family farm that inspired him to form the group Artists Against Fracking, which he co-founded with his mother Yoko Ono, runs on oil and gas.  When he was asked about why it’s not powered by renewables, he said "I'm actually looking into it. It's a long process. I've met with a lot of solar companies. I'm looking for the best possible solution, and there are a lot of options out there."[1]

Well if it’s that complicated for a single farm, imagine how it is for a village, town, city, state or a whole country.  But then again, this sort of imagining is not Sean’s oeuvre.

"I'm not an activist by nature, I'm a musician. What I'm interested in is making music and art," Lennon said on the bus. "I had no desire to be spending any of my time researching things like benzene, methane and uranium and well-pits and well-casings and what percentage of well-casings fail [sic] over how many years."[2]

Politicians are going to be chagrined when the results of the health studies return and they find that health is improved by natural gas because it burns cleaner than coal and fuel oil, and puts money in pockets of people who might otherwise not be able to afford healthcare. 

But hey, if Sean Lennon can write energy policy, then maybe I can write songs.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

---

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/celebrity-fractivists-true-advocates-nimbys-180201969.html

Web accessed 3/6/13

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/18/fracking-debate-ono-lennon-sarandon-tour

Web accessed 3/6/13

Dear Shale Protestor,

If the argument over the Keystone XL pipeline sounds the same as the argument over fracking permits, that’s because it is, chapter and verse.  It’s the same people making the same argument using the same tactics to enforce the same agenda. They want to shut down all hydrocarbons.

It doesn’t matter that hydrocarbons are organic. [Think Mother Earth’s compost heap.]  It doesn’t matter that they are local and cheap.  It doesn’t matter that burning them dates to the caveman or that nearly 90% of the world’s energy is hydrocarbon. It doesn’t matter that should the US not develop its gas, Russia and the Middle East most certainly will.  They want what they want and they will not stop until they get it.

The lead editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal, “No More Keystone Excuses,“ does a fine job of explaining how these people work.  I took the liberty of paraphrasing today’s editorial — replacing President Obama with Governor Cuomo and Keystone pipeline with New York fracking permits, while changing little else — and all becomes clear. While they may not have science, they do have a script.

                                                                                              

                                                                             ***

‘On Friday fracking permits received another boost when the another study [aka …  life as we know it] found there is no dire impact associated with shale development.  All of which means Governor Cuomo has run out of excuses to keep delaying an approval of millions of dollars of investment that would provide thousands of jobs.

The study, the fourth such study in four years, found once again that oil and gas development via hydraulic fracturing does not impact those who live nearby.  Appalachian shale is among the world’s largest hydrocarbon resources, and Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia have already moved to develop it.  If New York doesn’t develop its gas, other states will.  Thus the issue is not whether the gas will flow but how much New Yorkers will benefit.

All this was known two years ago, but Mr. Cuomo delayed fracking permits in 2011 and again in 2012 to appease his green financial donors while contemplating a run for President.  His labor supporters favor development, which will provide thousands of union jobs.  His green supporters don’t much care about jobs because they are already rich.  They are also impervious to evidence like that in the study because global warming is their religion.

“Mother Nature filed her comments last year — the hottest year in American history; the top climate scientists in the US have already chimed in, “ said Bill McKibben in reaction to the report.  He’s the leader of the anti-fossil fuel forces who was arrested last month after chaining himself to the gates of the Governor’s Mansion.

The opponents’ goal is to shut down all fossil-fuel production, one step at a time.  They’re on the way to destroying the US coal industry, and the Sierra Club and others have made shale-gas drilling its next political target. They want the world economy to run on windmills and solar panels.  And these are the folks who denounce the Republicans for ignoring science.

The larger issue is whether the New York wants to continue to be considered a serious economic state with rising living standards and a modern energy supply. If Mr. Cuomo turns down fracking permits, neighboring states will be laughing as they sell their gas into New York markets and build their economic power, while New York adapts to the Sierra Club’s preferred future of the state as Vermont.'

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom
New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

Today I testified in front of a New York Assembly hearing on HIgh Volume Hydraulic Fracturing hosted by: Robert Sweeney, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation; Richard Gottfried, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Health; and Charles Lavine, Chair of the Assembly Administrative Regulation Review Commission.

I was given five minutes and I stayed within my time constraint, unlike many.

After I introduced myself, here is what I said:

"... I am convinced that natural gas is the fuel of the future.

New York is a good example.  Our state is the 4^th largest consumer in the nation and poised to grow. Increasing consumption will be driven by: stricter air emission regulations that phase out coal and fuel oil, possible shutdown of Indian Point, aggressive renewable standards beginning 2015, new technology for natural gas transportation and low prices. 

Yet, despite the resource beneath our feet, New York imports 95% of what it consumes; while the revised draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement is bogged down in its 5^th year of review. This is foolish at best and hypocritical at worst.  Every concern that has been raised has either not born out or already been addressed.

Somehow what is being done in 15 other states is impossible in New York.  Some claim that the DEC is not up to the task. Others point to accidents or historical problems.  Still others point to incidents that happened in Pennsylvania before the state updated regulations.  People are skeptical that industry will be accountable, despite numerous examples to the contrary.

New York can learn from what is happening elsewhere.  Pennsylvania, for example, chose not wait for perfect regulation.  With 50-years of experience and 1 million plus wells already fracked in the United States, they did not put themselves at risk either. They learned as they went and changed when necessary.  If elections are an indication, the people are happy with the tradeoffs that their officials made.   All eight state representatives from Tioga, Bradford and Susquehanna counties — Republicans and Democrats both — favor natural gas.  The tone of local media also shows it mostly favors natural gas.    If there are monsters under the bed, they did not find them.

Pennsylvania is no pushover either.  Last year the legislature passed, and the governor signed, a comprehensive bill tightening and clarifying oil and gas regulation, as well as authorizing a price-indexed impact fee for each unconventional well.  While the precise scope of Act 13 is still being decided by the state’s Supreme Court, the first collection of the impact fee totaled $204 million.  The money is given to all counties and municipalities in the state, divided 60/40 between those that host development and those that don’t.  It goes to repair roads and bridges, provide affordable housing, preserve open space and buy equipment for first responders.

Some say leave the gas in the ground.  Wind and solar are the fuels of the future.  I disagree.  There are no alternatives to natural gas except heavy hydrocarbons with worse environmental impacts and nuclear power.  Wind and solar will not supply the energy we need.  They are expensive, and always will be, because they require large surface installations.  Over 30-years, one natural gas well on a 3-acre pad will deliver the same amount of energy as 200-acres of solar panels or 500-acres of wind turbines[1].  To put that in perspective, the amount of energy already developed in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus is equivalent to 32-square miles of solar or 80-square miles of wind[2].  Or to put it another way, covering every square inch of Tompkins and Cortland Counties with wind turbines and solar panels will not generate as much energy as the Marcellus. 

Natural gas is abundant, clean, safe, reliable and inexpensive.  It is natural, organic, local and renewable. [Note: The crowd laughed at this statement.]  Holding the future hostage to wait for utopia,  or pay for the past, is like cutting off the nose to spite the face.   It mostly harms our own — especially landowners in the economically depressed Southern Tier.  Approving the rdSGEIS, as is, without further delay, will ensure that New Yorkers benefit from this extraordinary resource right now when they need it most."

I don't think the Assembly members present heard a word I said.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

---

[1]  Taum Sauk analysis.

[2]  Based on 7,000 wells, which is the approximate number of wells drilled and producing in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus from 2000-2012.

Dear Shale Protestor,

At the Cornell Debate on November 15th I was asked, "What does fracking mean for the economy?"  I was given 4 minutes to answer the question.  I post what I said here because I think it is the core argument of why the United States needs to develop shale, and do it now.  

***

Energy independence has been in the nation’s psyche ever since it was first proposed in November 1973.  An aspiration akin to landing the first man on the moon, or defeating the Soviet Union, energy independence has proven far more elusive. So to put the economic effect of fracking in context, when the IEA [International Energy Agency] issued its forecast this past Monday -- that the United States will be the world’s largest oil producer by 2020 and energy-self-sufficient by 2035 --  it predicted that something that has been impossible for two generations could be achieved largely because of fracking.

Energy markets are global, meaning energy independence does not insulate the United States from global affairs or global prices.  However, as the persistent $10-20 spread between Brent and WTI oil price shows, it is possible to have differential prices in global markets for an extended period of time.  

When price differences are large and stable, investment follows.   For example, the price of natural gas in the United States has fallen from $9 to $3/MCF because of fracking.  Natural gas is priced at an oil equivalent of $20/BBL, a 4X advantage over world prices.  As a result, fuel, electricity, transportation and raw materials are priced lower here than anywhere else.  Investment follows like the multi-billion dollar one Shell has announced in Western Pennsylvania for a world-class ethane cracker creating thousands of jobs and a hub for the resurgent petrochemical industry.

When lower prices from the US transmit around the world, it opens a door for everyone including individuals living in "grinding energy poverty" [phrase used by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a speech given October 19, 2012 at Georgetown University] on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.  1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity. 3 billion people cook over fires fueled by dung, wood, charcoal and coal.  When cooking fuel becomes cheaper and cleaner, their lives will improve, and so will ours. This problem will not wait for the next generation.  People want better lives now. 

Another possibility brought forward by fracking is the potential for China and India to bypass coal and move directly to natural gas.  Both countries have large resources of shale. 

American jobs are another obvious benefit. The most recent estimate is 1.7 million direct, indirect and induced jobs have been created because of fracking. That number could double in the next 10 years. 

Industry jobs are criticized for being boom and bust.  I have personal experience with that joining the industry during a boom and leaving to go back to school during a bust.  I don’t think it’s ever realistic to think that a job is guaranteed for life no matter what industry you join.

Industry jobs require skills and expertise in engineering and science, management, accounting and law.  Skills are transportable.  Industry also provides high paying jobs for blue collar workers, who have an unemployment rate 3% higher than the national average. 

It’s instructive to look at what has already happened in Pennsylvania.  Before the Marcellus, the state imported 75% of its natural gas from the Gulf Coast States and Canada.  Now the state exports gas.  Money that used to flow out of the state is collected within the state and contributes severance, ad valorem and income taxes to state and local budgets.  During the first year of implementation in 2011 the impact fee on unconventional natural gas wells raised $205 million.

You don’t have to take my word for it.  Go see for yourself.  It’s easy to drive to Tioga, Bradford or Susquehanna counties.  Go to the diner.  Talk to people.   Of course there are some nay sayers, change is never easy, but by and large people are enthusiastic about what’s happening.   All eight elected state representatives from these counties, Republicans and Democrats, are in favor of natural gas.

As State Senator, Lisa Baker, from Susquehanna County said in a speech she gave on June 29, 2012 to the Pennsylvania Senate supporting Shell’s ethane cracker, “Over the years we’ve seen multiple economic strategies launched and countless incentives and assistance programs offered to jump start job creation.  Few have had any hope of yielding the economic payoff anticipated from this project. “

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

Once the cameras stopped, the real action began in the public fracking debate I participated in between industry representatives and Cornell faculty held November 15th on campus. 

During the debate, industry representatives aimed a fusillade of shots at Bob Howarth, Rene Santoro and Tony Ingraffea’s paper claiming that unconventional natural gas development causes more greenhouse gas emissions than coal.  Criticism ranged from the general, like no paper written since supports them, to the specific, like a pumper (production field hand) driving up to a well venting such large amounts of methane would have to have a death wish. 

Howarth defended the work.  He doubled down saying that his new findings will show plumes of methane coming off natural gas fields, which have been aerially photographed by both Purdue and Cornell Universities.  He also shot back with some wicked humor snidely insinuating that anyone who disagrees has “methane coming out of more places than we know.” 

After the debate, everyone shook hands in a show of sportsmanship.  Panelists on either side continued talking in pairs and small groups.  I thought Howarth would drop the disdain and engage the criticism showing intellectual curiosity worthy of a professor.  

He did just the opposite.

When I asked whether he would work with an industry advisory committee, he replied that he didn’t need one.   When I asked about including a petroleum engineer among his co-authors, he replied that he already had one, Tony Ingraffea. When I asked if and when he was going to retract his paper, he went into a tirade about how he had spent his life doing real science unlike industry hacks like me. 

Each question caused him to get more agitated, drawing closer and closer.  By the time it was over, he was standing so close to me that I felt personally threatened.   

So why would a tenured professor at an Ivy League institution stoop to name calling and physical intimidation?  Is this education?  Or is it indoctrination?

By the way, if any graduate student reads this and recognizes themself in my shoes, go file a harassment complaint as fast as you can! 

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

The energy panel organized by undergraduate students at Columbia University here in New York City asked a lot of good questions.  The first question was, "What are the potential environmental consequences of fracking?  Out of the impacts which are short term and which long term?" 

I told them that there are all kinds of worries, but most are not very substantial.  Yet, while the potential for environmental impact is small, it is not infinitesimal. 

Here is what can happen and what is being done about it:

1.      Short term Impact:  Well drilling is a construction project: first the surface location is prepared, then the equipment is placed, finally supplies are delivered and the drilling takes place.  It takes anywhere from a few weeks to a year or more depending on how many wells are drilled, how deep and long they are.  Truck traffic is significant and roads take a beating.  To counter this, states like Pennsylvania collect an impact fee.  In 2011 that totaled $205 million in 2011.  The money is divided between the state, state agencies, counties and municipalities.  It is used to repair roads, bridges, provide affordable housing, preserve open space and buy equipment for first responders.  Communities that allow drilling must be fairly compensated.

2.      Short term Impact:  All wells are drilled through aquifers.  Nearby water wells may run cloudy for a few days while drilling occurs.  That’s from the pressure wave that is created by drilling the surface hole.  Typically the disturbance clears up in a few days.  If it doesn’t, it’s usually because there is a problem with the water well.  In the United States there are millions of rural, unmonitored, unregulated water wells.  Many of the wells are old and have never been maintained.  Natural gas drilling can expose pre-existing problems with methane and bacteria that the homeowner may not have been aware of.  Pre-drilling water samples, and monitoring water while drilling, can be used to improve rural water supplies.

3.     Short term Impact:  Chemicals and brine handled on the surface may spill.  This is not new and companies have procedures to reduce the risk, mitigate the impact, and clean up the spill.  All Spills have to be reported to the state authorities.  Companies are increasingly using food grade chemicals in their wells.  They are self-reported on http://fracfocus.org. By the way, more than 200 energy-producing companies have registered over 15,000 well sites in the past year, not because they had to, but because it was the right thing to do.

4.      Long term Impact:  Improperly constructed and poorly maintained wells cause problems.  They are conduits for gas migration. Surface casing has to be set across the aquifer and cemented into place.  This has to be verified with a pressure test and a cement bond log. Intermediate casing must be set across shallow gas zones and cemented into place.  This has to be verified with a pressure test and cement bond log.  Casing head pressure has to be monitored.  If a well develops a casing leak or a tubing leak it has to be repaired.

5.     Long term Impact:  Poorly sited equipment causes problems.  Compressor stations and condensate tanks located near homes cause complaints about noise and smells.  Compressors need enclosures and noise abatement.  Tanks need vapor recovery.

6.      Long term Impact:  Improperly plugged and abandoned wells cause problems.  The proper procedure is once the well is past its life, it is pumped full of cement.  The valves at the surface are disconnected and hauled off.   Producers have to set money aside for P&A (plug and abandon) costs.  Abandoned and orphaned wells are a problem in some states because this wasn't done.  Texas serves as a model for how to cope with the problem.  Despite having drilled over a million wells, the state only has 8,000 orphaned and abandoned wells and aggressively locates and plugs 1,400 wells per year.

Every one of these impacts can be addressed by effective regulation and oversight.  

Most of them are already being addressed by good will and self interest.  

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City