You are here
Marcellus Shale Press Coverage
Secondary tabs
Anti-Fracking Activists Celebrate Victory
Anti-fracking activists took a victory lap Thursday, celebrating the Cuomo administration's decision to ban fracking in New York.
They met in front of Government Plaza in Binghamton Thursday afternoon before delivering a thank you card and a jug of clean water to Cuomo's satellite office in the State Office Building. The activists present said it was their efforts that raised enough questions about fracking to force the state to look at the issue and ultimately decide against it.
"I had no inkling that he would actually prohibit shale fracking in New York. This is just a stunning decision and it's going to set a precedent for the whole country," said Walter Hang, President of Toxics Targeting.
"I think it's a game changer all across the nation to see a Governor and a Health Department and a Department of Environmental Conservation stand up to say, 'We're not going to do the pollution and find out the consequences later,'" said former Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan.
Ryan says the state can now be a leader in clean energy, a sector he believes could produce a number of good jobs.
A Chat on New York’s Shale Gas Ban with Anti-Fracking Superhero Mark Ruffalo
The actor Mark Ruffalo, who lives near the Delaware River in upstate New York, campaigning against shale gas drilling in 2011.
On Twitter early this morning, I had a productive exchange about Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s decision to ban shale gas development in New York with Mark Ruffalo, the actor best known for playing the Marvel comic character Hulk.
Ruffalo, who lives near the Delaware River in the upstate New York region that was targeted for shale gas drilling, is one of many prominent public figures who pressed Cuomo long and hard to ban hydraulic fracturing, popularly known as fracking.
We both would love to see a post-fossil energy menu for New York, and the planet, in coming years but differ on how to achieve that goal. Our differences emerged two years ago in comment exchanges (scan them here) on a David Roberts post at Grist on “The Virtues of Being Unreasonable on Keystone” (the pipeline that would bring Canadian tar sands oil to American refineries).
Here’s our chat, with some Twitter-speak cleaned up (Ruffalo was happy to have it posted here), and a takeaway thought from me:
The discussion began when I noted this:
Ruffalo (appropriately) spread the credit more broadly:
I agreed there were many involved, including organizers like Walter Hang, a longtime toxic-site consultant based in Ithaca (I’ve credited him for identifying regulatory weaknesses, for example).
Ruffalo singled out some others:
Then we shifted to energy and environmental policy. I noted that overarching arguments about national or state energy and regulatory policy can’t compete against the political intensity that comes from those resisting an industrial-style activity in a populous region with a bucolic setting:
Ruffalo added another element, a reference to an all-renewable energy plan for New York State created by Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson and others (discussed on Dot Earth here):
I noted that it’s hard to see a state shale-gas drilling ban meaningfully affecting a path to new energy options as long as the state is importing vast amounts of gas from other regions for both industry and household use:
He challenged this argument, saying a roadmap is vital:
I agreed on the value of a vision (see Dot Earth for my caveats):
We shifted to other factors that influenced the decision, with Ruffalo noting that big environmental groups, some of which have supported natural gas as a transitional fuel, were pressured as well:
I brought up how low natural gas prices from expanded gas production elsewhere were likely involved (a point long hammered by the No Fracking Way blogger Chip Northrup):
Ruffalo’s response:
He also noted that he was working to help Jacobson and others press the case for a national renewable energy plan, The Solutions Project:
Ruffalo also stressed New York’s progress on expanding solar power (which has been substantial):
I mentioned, from personal experience with our new old house in the Hudson Valley, that there are still difficulties with solar affordability:
He suggested one clean-energy option, buying renewable energy through Ethical Electric:
I said I’d check it out and have done so, and we’re switching from Central Hudson to wind-generated power from this provider for the next 12 months.
My takeaway from Cuomo’s decision and my chat with Ruffalo is that progress on environmental and energy policy in the United States emerges from a never-ending, and normal, tussle involving a mix of activism, law, economic realities, scientific and technological advances (both in developing energy sources cleanly and tracking problems), improving transparency (which is far greater now, even in places like Wyoming, than a few years ago), politics and lots of communication.
With communication in mind, Twitter is one path that I still contend is worthwhile. You can follow Ruffalo at @MarkRuffalo and me at @Revkin. Our full chat is here if you have time. We explored a couple of additional threads.
This may all be ugly at times, but the trajectories are in the right direction.
Fractivists rally after fracking ban
Binghamton (WIVT) - Citizen Action, former Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan, Walter Hang from Toxics Targeting, and others rallied outside of government plaza in downtown Binghamton Thursday afternoon after Wednesday's decision to not allow the drilling process in New York State.
They held up signs thanking Governor Andrew Cuomo for the decision and delivered a signed poster board to his local office.
Although the governor distanced himself from the decision yesterday, saying he deferred to the commissioners of the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of Health.
The results from the health department's two year study were inconclusive according to its acting commissioner, although he cited a number of studies that raised significant concerns regarding water and air pollution and negative community impacts.
"No one really thought that the concerns that we originally voiced were valid, but what was proven yesterday is that the Department of Health commissioner acknowledged all of the shortcomings in the knowledge of how shale fracking can be done safely, all of our concerns that we voiced for so many years were acknowledged," said Toxics Targeting President, Walter Hang.
"We've been doling out enough criticism of the governor. We're here today to praise the governor for what he did," said former Binghamton Mayor, Matt Ryan.
Back when Mayor Ryan, who is a Democrat, was in office he repeatedly joined anti-fracking rallies and called out the Governor over fracking and wanted him to ban the process.
The Joint Landowners Coalition, which supports fracking, declined an on camera interview today.
Through a statement it expressed outrage over the decision.
The coalition questions why 34 other states believe fracking can be done safely, but New York doesn't.
Fracking opponents celebrate ban in Binghamton
Members of the anti-drilling coalition gather today to support Wednesday's decision by New York to block fracking.
Up until 12:15 p.m. Wednesday, many leaders of New York's anti-fracking movement were convinced the state was going to approve a pilot program in Broome and nearby counties using the controversial drilling method.
Conflicting rumors swirled that morning after it was first reported the state would make an announcement on natural gas exploration. Drilling opponents said they feared they had lost the first round in their six-year battle to ban fracking in New York.
Only when Acting Health Commissioner Howard Zucker urged the state to prevent fracking from moving forward did opponents feel relief.
"I never thought this would happen," said Walter Hang of the Ithaca-based Toxics Targeting during a celebration rally Thursday in front of the Binghamton State Office Building.
About 20 members of the anti-drilling coalition gathered to sign a "thank you" card that was delivered to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's representatives in Binghamton.
On Wednesday, Zucker and Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens said after a comprehensive review of scientific studies examining the environmental effects of fracking, they could not recommend New York proceed with the practice of extracting natural gas from shale formations deep beneath the ground.
The recommendation effectively blocks natural gas drilling using the fracking technique in New York.
"This is a victory for the people of Southern Tier, the people of New York and it is cause for celebration," said Isaac Silberman-Gorn, a community organizer for Citizen Action in Binghamton.
Drilling supporters, however, were angered by the determination, saying the state failed to consider evidence indicating that natural gas exploration using horizontal drilling techniques could be done safely with the proper regulations and monitoring.
They point to the more than 30 other states, including California, where fracking has been approved, creating an abundance of newly discovered natural gas and petroleum.
Hydraulic fracturing uses a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to fracture shale formation up to a mile or more underground to release trapped natural gas.
Broome County Executive Debbie Preston said the decision to block fracking will cost municipalities along the gas-rich Marcellus Shale millions of dollars in potential tax revenue, closing off tax relief from beleaguered homeowners.
Additionally, she said, drilling would have spurred development in a region that has suffered from job losses over at least the past 10 years.
"I still think it can be done safely," Preston said. Only a short distance from her own Conklin home, Preston said Pennsylvania-based drills are tapping the resource that now is off-limits for her New York neighbors.
A ban may also have a potential effect on real estate values, said Preston, a Republican. Now that drilling is prohibited in New York, properties that were assessed on the basis of the potential income from gas resources believed to be underneath the ground could possibly appeal for reduced valuations.
The move by the state's top health and environmental regulators is the culmination of a decision-making process that has stretched through more than six years, two governors, several layers of review, numerous missed deadlines and countless protests and rallies across the state.
It represents a major victory for fracking critics, many of whom have trailed Cuomo, a Democrat, at events for the past four years. New York becomes the first state with significant shale reserves to move toward a formal fracking ban.
With Unresolved Health Risks and Few Signs of an Economic Boon, Cuomo to Ban Gas Fracking
After years of gauging the environmental, medical, economic and political risks of hydraulic fracturing, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is moving to ban this method of extracting natural gas from shale deposits in New York State.
[Update, 9:30 p.m. | See the end of the post for an excerpt from the state health study that underpinned the decision.]
It had been clear for years, as I wrote in 2012, that there was little political or economic impetus to act quickly, even though I felt (and still am convinced) that gas extraction from shale can be done safely and cleanly if properly regulated.
I would have preferred an approach allowing some carefully supervised drilling where communities were supportive — which Cuomo had pondered several years ago. See my conversation with Josh Fox, the director of “Gasland,” for more on my view.
But for a governor, data on drilling risks are just one of a host of considerations. The issue is similar to President Obama’s quandary on the Keystone oil pipeline. (It’ll be interesting to see if low oil prices prompt the president to tip the balance there toward rejection. On Tuesday, Obama announced he was barring oil and gas exploration in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.)
Cuomo faced sustained, forceful and creative opposition from his left (the image below is one example of the creativity) and, as the upstate journalist Tom Wilber made clear in his blog and book, “Under the Surface,” there were few signs that New York would be able to provide sufficient oversight to justify drilling. (Read here for more on that question.) On top of this, courts were increasingly upholding community efforts to enact local bans.
A montage created in 2012 by Mark Ohe showed what a gas drilling site using hydraulic fracturing would look like near the Mount Kisco, N.Y., home of Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
The natural gas news is nicely summarized by The New York Times and Associated Press. The A.P. story had this excellent section laying out how the decision was unveiled, with the prime factors being “red flag” issues described by the state health commissioner, Howard Zucker, and scant signs of an economic benefit described by Joe Martens, the environmental conservation commissioner:
Zucker and Martens on Wednesday summarized the findings of environmental and health reviews that concluded that shale gas development using high-volume hydraulic fracturing carried unacceptable risks that haven’t been sufficiently studied….
The gas drilling boom in the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation underlying southern New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, was made possible by fracking, or high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which releases gas from rock by injecting wells with chemically treated water at high pressure.
The drilling technique has generated tens of billions of dollars and reduced energy bills and fuel imports. But it’s also brought concerns and sparked protests over air and water pollution, earthquakes, property devaluation, heavy truck traffic and health impacts.
New York has had a ban on shale gas development since the environmental review began in 2008.
Zucker said he had identified “significant public health risks” and “red flag” health issues that require long-term studies before fracking can be called safe. He likened fracking to secondhand smoke, which wasn’t fully understood as a health risk until many years of scientific study had been done.
Martens noted the low price of natural gas, the high local cost of industry oversight and the large areas that would be off-limits to shale gas development because of setback requirements, water supply protections, and local prohibitions. He said those factors combine to make fracking less economically beneficial than had been anticipated.
I reached out to a variety of people involved in, or tracking, the New York gas-drilling fight for reactions. The first response are below, with more added as they come in.
But first here’s a helpful excerpt from the No Fracking Way blog written by Chip Northrup, a former oil and gas investor who has long fought against drilling in New York (and who’s been on Dot Earth before). Alluding to the arguments of Cuomo’s commissioners Zucker and Martens, Northrup noted:
Both of them cited the greatly reduced area where fracking would actually take place in New York – since most upstate towns ban it.
And the only towns that might allow it are in an small area by the Pennsylvania border that is not currently economic. So, frankly, simply not worth fracking fooling with.
Which makes perfect sense from all standpoints: environmentally, economically and politically.
Bruce Selleck, a geologist at Colgate University who is deeply conversant with both the shale and gas down below and politics on the surface, offered this trenchant reaction:
My suspicion is that Andrew Cuomo sees little chance of being nominated for president in 2016, and 2020 is such a long time away that making this decision now keeps his close supporters happier. Low natural gas (and crude) prices also make it an easier call. Now we have four new casinos, but no new rural economic development. What a great state!
Walter Hang, an environmental mapping consultant and nonstop anti-drilling campaigner, wrote this:
This stupendous victory was won by an unrelenting grassroots citizen campaign powered by amazing press coverage that systematically highlighted the public health and environmental concerns of shale fracking. That effort has won a victory unparalleled in the annals of the American environmental movement.
Here’s John Cronin, formerly the Hudson Riverkeeper and currently senior fellow for environmental policy at Pace University’s Pace Academy for Applied Environmental Studies (we teach one course together):
I take Governor Cuomo at his word — fracking will run afoul of New York’s interests in public health and the environment. The case is strong. I believe he is convinced by the evidence, which has only been made stronger during the prolonged regulatory decision period. There is no political advantage to Cuomo’s decision. No realistic presidential candidates from either party are articulating strong anti-fracking positions. There is no possibility there will be a future gubernatorial upset over the issue. Mainstream environmentalists will never abandon him in favor of a Republican or independent challenger. He is alienating parts of the public, and monied interests, for whom regional fracking is a voter getter. Sometimes decisions are made for the very reasons that officials articulate.
Steve Everley, who for years has represented the industry position on gas in the Marcellus through the Energy in Depth blog, sent a long note from which I’m extracting this excerpt (I’ll post the full note in the comment string):
What strikes me about the Cuomo administration’s use of health risks to restrict fracking is that, just a few short years ago, the same New York Department of Environmental Conservation declared, “we’ve concluded that high-volume hydrofracking can be undertaken safely, along with strong and aggressive regulations.” Other than political considerations, what changed?
Certainly the DEC would claim that “new” studies show the health risks are too great. But there were studies before DEC’s 2011 proclamation that suggested there are concerns that need to be addressed. Isn’t that why we have regulations – to make sure risks and other concerns are addressed? There have also been studies showing that development is protective of public health, to say nothing of the fact that natural gas is a far cleaner alternative to some of our other power and heating options. New York is the fifth largest consumer of natural gas in the United States, but I heard nothing from DEC suggesting that it would be imposing a moratorium on the use of gas produced by fracking elsewhere.
If this were a real health threat, and not motivated by politics, then wouldn’t the Cuomo administration be pleading with its neighbors in Pennsylvania to stop producing natural gas? I must have missed that portion of the press conference.
The decision to ban any economic activity – be it oil and gas development or any other industry – suggests that the process itself is inherently unsafe and cannot be done safely. No one who is interested in objectivity could make that claim about hydraulic fracturing. Gallup reported earlier this year that the top state in overall wellbeing was North Dakota, fueled by the massive economic opportunities unleashed by the oil boom. That ranking included factors such as health and access to basic necessities. If allowing fracking posed insurmountable health problems, then how are people in North Dakota doing so well?
Somehow, we’ve discovered ways to develop oil and gas in ways that are not only protective of public health, but actually lead to net benefits in terms of well-being. It’s not that we couldn’t replicate that in New York, it’s that the DEC didn’t even want to try.
In his email, Everley noted that he had relocated from the Northeast back to Dallas earlier this month.
In many ways, that move may well reflect the inevitability of what just happened.
Added 6:04 p.m. | Anthony Ingraffea, Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering Emeritus at Cornell University and president of Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy, Inc., sent this note:
Two wise New York State governors: Paterson for imposing the de facto moratorium in 2008 when there were 6 (six) peer reviewed papers in the literature on shale gas impacts; Cuomo for understanding that by 2010 there were still only 6 (six) and he demanded that the science dictate his decision.
There are now over 400 papers, about 3/4th in the last two years. The science played catch-up to policy in other states–it is dictating policy in NYS. An annotated Compendium of those papers is at
http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CHPNY-Fracking-Compendium.pdf
and an analysis of the state-of-the-science on health impacts is at
Added 6:22 p.m. | Tom Wilber, the author and journalist focused on the Marcellus gas fight, wrote:
This decision is consistent with Cuomo’s progressive politics that got him to where he is now. It’s a bold move and I optimistically take it as sincere attempt to overcome inertia of fossil fuel dependency. But it needs to be accompanied by practical reforms/initiatives in energy development & consumption….
Cuomo finally got tired of being hounded on the issue by his political base. The movement in New York against shale gas was relentless and it was directed at him personally. At one point, he told Susan Arbetter, host of Capitol Press Room, that it was the most effective political action campaign he had seen. (I have a note out to Susan for the date of that show) Activists, both institutional and grass roots, promised to step it if he allowed a single well.
The other thing was the influence of the Home Rule decision, and the falling price of natural gas made this politically much easier. He would have a hard taking this bone from landowners back when landmen were at their doors with big checks in hand. Nobody is currently seriously looking at shale gas exploration, much less development, in New York with the prices as low as they are and the encumbrances of Home Rule. [Here’s Wilber’s blog post.]
Added, 9:30 p.m. | Here’s an excerpt from the Department of Health review of research on shale gas and illness, which found too many unresolved questions and plausible risks to endorse high volume hydraulic fracturing (abbreviated as HVHF in the report):
Based on this review, it is apparent that the science surrounding HVHF activity is limited, only just beginning to emerge, and largely suggests only hypotheses about potential public health impacts that need further evaluation….
As with most complex human activities in modern societies, absolute scientific certainty regarding the relative contributions of positive and negative impacts of HVHF on public health is unlikely to ever be attained. In this instance, however, the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately managed, DOH recommends that HVHF should not proceed in New York State.