How some upstate environmentalists came to embrace fracking
On property that is a potential fracking site. Sarah Laskow
12:34 pm Aug. 9, 201214
ITHACA—Sitting on the porch of the ecolodge he's building, Bob Lyon pointed up the hill in front of us.
"That's where the company drilled the well," he said. "We sat here for a months with the tower blinking and the compressor hissing, all summer long."
Lyon's ecolodge is going up in New York's Southern Tier, on top of one of the thickest, most potentially lucrative sections of the Marcellus Shale, which is possibly the single largest source of newly accessible natural gas in the country.
His family owns almost 300 undeveloped acres in Tioga County—a private nature preserve. Every morning, he sees a bald eagle fishing in one of his ponds, with her two eaglets. Twice a week, two pairs of mating bob cats pass through.
The gas company that drilled the well on top of Lyon's hill wanted to start fracking—extracting natural gas using a controversial drilling technique without which the gas would be unreachable—until the New York Department of Environmental Conservation put a moratorium on the practice.
With the ban in place, the company capped the well and retreated. From the porch, there's no evidence the industry was there at all.
Since then, Lyon's been released from the original gas lease on the land. But if the gas company were to come back, to open the possibility of a new lease, he would sign it.
Under New York law a company could harvest the gas underneath his property, anyway, from a well drilled elsewhere, paying him royalties for the bounty extracted. But Lyon, 50, a dentist, a philanthropist, the owner of a small construction company whose family has lived in this area as long as any white people have, would also sign the lease because he's all for natural gas drilling.
Lyon considers himself an environmentalist. He moved out here to the country full-time because he wanted to live in the middle of nowhere. He has an agreement with the state that keeps him from mowing his lawns in mid-July so that fawns and the chicks of wild turkeys have safe places to nestle into the tall grass. He cares deeply about the quality of the water on this piece of land: He's seen pintails, blue- and green-winged teals, hooded mergansers, common mergansers, and once, three weeks last sweltering summer, a great white heron who had no business being this far north.
"They wouldn't be here unless the water was crystal-clear perfect," Lyon said.
He knows there are risks to fracking, and that accidents have happened in other states, and that the gas industry, like any industry, has a financial incentive to take shortcuts.
"If anyone stands to lose a gigantic amount, it would be me and my wife," he said. "We invested our life savings in this property."
But he sees benefits to drilling, too, including the relative environmental benefit of a fuel source that produces less carbon pollution than other fossil fuels. He thinks the gas industry has had enough time and made enough mistakes that it can operate with a measure of common sense now. He's pleased that the state's Department of Environmental Conservation took the time to look closely at fracking and at the best way to regulate the industry. Now he thinks it's time for them to get out of the way.
FRACKING’S SUPPORTERS HAVE ALWAYS MADE for a strange coalition.
Three years ago, big environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace were arguing for natural gas development without any of the caveats they bring up today. Opposition came primarily from small grassroots organizations that were at least as concerned with local environmental impacts as with the global-scale carbon impact on which national groups were focused.
Many of the locally focused grassroots opponents want to ban fracking altogether, and in response, the national environmental groups have grown more cautious in their support of natural gas. The tentative, unusual alliance between environmentalists and the natural gas industry has fallen apart, and the debate in Washington has reverted to more typical form, with Republicans arguing that government regulation is stifling business opportunity and Democrats arguing that government-imposed restrictions are the only thing stopping the profit-hungry industry from doing irreparable damage to the environment.
It's still possible to find people in the environmental movement who think fracking for natural gas should go forward, with the right regulations. It’s also possible to find Democratic politicians, including President Obama, who agree with them.
If there is such a thing as safe fracking, New York arguably has the best chance of any state of pulling it off. Governor Andrew Cuomo's administration has proceeded more slowly than other state governments with such a large and potentially productive sections of shale within their jurisdictions. This summer, the administration floated the idea, via a front-page article in The New York Times, of opening up five counties in the Southern Tier for fracking, if local governments approve the drilling. A real fracking plan will reportedly be out by Labor Day.)
I met Bob Lyon because I went looking for people in the Southern Tier who actually believed in what Obama and Cuomo seem to be promising. I wasn't sure these people even existed: the position that Obama and other politicians have staked out feels like a mushy political ground between the greener Democrats worried about unforeseeable environmental consequences of fracking and anti-regulation Republicans who think Americans deserve quick access to any fossil fuels found in the ground.
But I found at least a handful of people living in the five counties where fracking could go forward—an organic dairy farmer, a retired international businessman, a family that gets its electricity from solar panels— who cared deeply about the fate of their land, water and air, who didn't trust the gas industry to protect those resources, and who thought that New York should let fracking go ahead.
These people aren't necessarily representative of views in the area. All of them identified as environmentalists. All of them owned land and stood to benefit financially from gas leases, although all of them said money wasn't a motivating factor for them. All of them belonged or had belonged to landowners' coalitions, some of which are friendlier with the gas industry than others. There are plenty of people in the Southern Tier who don't share their perspective—drilling opponents convinced that fracking will ruin the place they've built their homes and drilling supporters who aren't particularly concerned about the environment.
One way of looking at the politicians and people who think safe fracking is possible: They're caught up in the Great American Fantasy—my lawyer's better than your lawyer. Write the right regulations or draw up a stronger lease and any potential issues will disappear (or result in substantial financial remuneration).
But the pro-drilling environmentalists I talked to were thoughtful about the risk of fracking and also mindful of the rewards. Some of them thought it was important for the state to closely monitor and regulate fracking. Others thought the best protection against environmental risk was a strong lease with protections built in. All of them also acknowledged that the process isn't perfect, that accidents happen, that they're betting a valued asset—their land—on their conviction that fracking can be done right.
ONE THING ABOUT THESE PEOPLE: THEY are decidedly not impressed by that flammable-tap-water thing, made famous by the anti-fracking documentary Gasland. In the Southern Tier, the tap water's been flammable for years, well before anyone ever heard about fracking. Setting your faucet aflame is a parlor trick, they say—a gimmick to impress newcomers.
"People have blown it out of proportion," said Christy Everitt. "There was methane in the water before."
Everitt, 50, lives outside of Vestal, New York, in Broome County. Her husband grew up here, and she grew up just across the border, in Pennsylvania. They bought this property in 1995, and they plan on living here for the rest of their lives.
They built their house on top of a hill, facing south to suck up passive solar energy, and down below three substantial solar panels tilt toward the sky. They grow vegetables in a small garden, compost their food scraps, and are raising chickens. When it's hot out, they don't depend on air conditioning: They retreat to the cooler basement or, as on the day I came by, sit outside on a bench beneath a tree, where a breeze often floats by.
This land had been available for a while when Everitt and her husband had the chance to purchase it. There was already a power line on the property and a gas pipeline, features that aren't exactly popular with potential landowners. But to her mind, those are the things required to live with billions of people on the planet.
"Do I really want it in my backyard? Not really," she said. "But I don't want to use it and have no responsibility for it coming into my hands."
That's one reason she supports drilling. People like solar, but they don't really know what's involved, she said—how many big, unsightly panels it takes to create enough electricity to power even one house. They fight wind turbines, too, just because they're ugly.
"Most of the people who oppose gas, they don't have their facts quite straight," she said. "I don't want anything to happen to this community or to my property."
I think this line sums up all the people you interviewed "All of them owned land and stood to benefit financially from gas leases". Need I say more?
"Pro-drilling environmentalists" is an oxymoron.
"All of them owned land and stood to benefit financially from gas leases, although all of them said money wasn't a motivating factor for them." Poppycock. It says so later "Most farmers in this area could use the extra income".
"All of them also acknowledged that the process isn't perfect, that accidents happen", and thus they are gamblers with our water, and thus our future. Clearly to them the money is worth the risk though.
...and remember, hydrofracking is all about the money. Short term gains for the few; long term risks and costs for the rest of us.
Tell these people who own 300 acres and have birds in it now that when the gas companies come and drill and leave toxic waste on their property and the first flood happens and the toxic water flows over the 300 acres. Then the animals will go first , the amphibians, then it'll go up the food chain to the beautiful eagles that will die. Oh this will take time, maybe 5-10 years but once the land is polluted with these chemicals that are use , the land will be rendered useless. Ask all of these "landowners" if their neighbors are for it. Having spoken on blogs to people who don't own 300 acres but are next to rich large landowners, the small landowner doesn't want it because if something does happen the rich leave the land and the neighbors with nothing but polluted blight and land that is worthless, the only "people" that will buy the land ( at a supstantial discount) will be the gas companies. The families will have little money to move.
If you want to help these farmers make their farms work get them started on algae based bio-fuel production. It's cheaper than oil, doesn't harm the environment like natural gas extraction and stick windmills on the land as well. The use of wind to drive energy plus using solar panels on acres of farmland won't destroy the land that is there.
Have all of these people who think fracking can be done safely, have them go to Dimock, Penn and see how that town has "prospered" from fracking.
If the air emissions, noise, traffic, water withdrawals, atmospheric effects, etc. could be confined to the leased property, then those owners would have the right to make the trade-off of environmental risk and economic gain. However, the effects and risks are wide-ranging. I don't think landowners have the right to subject their neighbors and community to risk for their own economic gain.
There are many ways that farmers can contribute to energy production aside from unconventional gas drilling. They can grow non-food crops, such as particular species of grasses, for use in biofuels and for biomass plants. They can use biodigesters to turn farm waste into usable methane. They can lease land for wind or solar production units. They can even have their own microhydro plant if they have the right water resources.
Joanne Corey
Vestal NY
I am so pleased that you covered the truth for a change. The only people that are against the fracing are the people who own no land and/ or are ignorant of the research data. I have more to lose than anyone as my 300 acre wildlife refuge would be at great danger if there was potential risk.....THERE IS NO REASON FOR CONCERN UNLESS YOU ARE UNINFORMED PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a philanthropist which means that $ is irrelevant to me. All my estate is left to a wildlife trust! If I thought that fracing was in anyway dangerous to the environment then I would wage war against it with my vast resources. Log on to my website www.doctorbob.us and get to know me so you all know that I do not make decisions without doing scientific diligent research Methane burns so much cleaner than all other alternatives so that it is the only choice. There will be surface accidents which will result in some environmental issues as all industry makes mistakes but with all the common sense that the Gas drilling industry has attained having learned from its mistakes, and with the NYS DEC watching diligently, we have little to fear and soooooooooooooooooooooooo much to benefit from. It is time for all people to get informed before opening their mouths, Natural gas will take this Nation in a direction beneficial to EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr. Robert Gordon Lyon,
Barton, NY...Gas Central
I own a 167 acre farm and unlike Mr. Lyon, a "philanthropist to whom money is irrelevant", I can't simply move away once the gas industry destroys our rural way of life. I have put my life savings, my heart, my body, and my brain into my farm. Of course, if the fossil fuel industry has its way, there won't be any pristine places to move to in 10 or 20 years anyway.
Human beings do not have the right to gamble with the air, water, and soil on which future generations will depend and at this point in history, when the disastrous effects of climate change are beginning to be felt in the first world (why worry when it's only happening to Asians and Africans, right, Mr. Lyon?), allowing fracking anywhere is suicide, plain and simple. It has been shown in a Stanford study by Mark Z. Jacobson (yes, please google it), that it is possible for the entire planet to run on solar, wind, and hydroelectric by 2030 IF the political will exists to begin the transition right now. Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry can't continue to rake in billions that way and since most of our politicians accept huge contributions from the industry, they are not interested in representing the people who actually elect them.
Sadly, the real problem with this issue is that our culture no longer emphasizes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
blatantly untrue is the assertion by writer sarah laskow that "If there is such a thing as safe fracking, New York arguably has the best chance of any state of pulling it off." refer to chip northrup, an ex- drilling proponent from texas, who reported to state senator avella's democratic caucus forum in nyc last month that actually new york has notoriously short distance-from-residence requirements for drill pads, and a DEC which serves to function as mineral resources management decoy, unlike other states which have separate agencies for those two often-conflicting purposes..
There is a lot of information out there, and science and that supports both sides. However, I was convinced by the industry's own reports that specifically state the high risks of leaks from well casings. These leaks can occur for multiple reasons--poor mud displacement, tubing leaks, cement losing volume as it dries. But, "Even a flawless primary cement job can be damaged by rig operations or well activities occurring after the cement has set."
These are not a few surface accidents. As the industry states in its OWN article, 6% of well casings fail immediately, and within 15 years over 50% have failed. This shows that well failure and leakage is not a rare occurrence: it is the norm.
Read the literature for yourself: I quoted Schlumberger's article "From Mud to Cement--Building Gas Wells" in Oil Review, but many industry articles are excerpted here:
http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/theskyispink_annotdoc-gasl4final.pdf
So here I am in Delawhare County, I'm not rich. My wife and I own 47 acres and Williams=Cabot, known as the Constitution Pipeline wants to run their pipe right through the middle of my property. It's early in the process and FERC has told them to explore other options. I don't under stand how a private company can threaten me with eminent domain.
Perfect first sentence, Dinah! the science supports both sides. how on earth do you pick!? I can't stand it. everyone is too extreme. get the facts for yourself and file your own opinion. if you listen to "environmentalists" or to "industry advocates" you'll never get all the facts. Each side leaves out 50% of the argument, an essential half that is a must when forming an opinion! keep up to date with daily news articles and informational/educational materials at shalestuff.com. form your own opinion. Josh Fox can be as slanted as Fox News and halliburton.
There are risks associated with fracking. There are also risks associated with letting anyone over 16 drive around with ten to 20 gallons of highly flammable, cancer-causing, air polluting liquid in their gas tank.
Do all those arguing against fracking get everywhere by walking or riding a bicycle? Or do they just ignore one of the biggest sources of environmental damage because they find it convenient?
Dear Dr Bob: the blow-by-blow:
Quoting your comment posts above:
"The only people that are against the fracing are the people who own no land and/ or are ignorant of the research data."
WRONG. I own over 200 acres, was initially pleased to receive a lease offer, and have been studying the research data for over 4 years now.
"THERE IS NO REASON FOR CONCERN UNLESS YOU ARE UNINFORMED PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
WRONG. The more you know, the more the impacts of gas extraction concern you: impacts on air, water, wildlife, property rights, community, local, state, and national democracy.
"I am a philanthropist which means that $ is irrelevant to me."
WRONG. That is not what being a philanthropist means. Typically, philanthropists are VERY interested in money; that's how they accrue so much that they can start dispensing large amounts of it to the causes of their choice.
A. "I do not make decisions without doing scientific diligent research" B. "Methane burns so much cleaner than all other alternatives so that it is the only choice."
WRONG on both counts. Regarding A, "wrong" is the only logical conclusion since you clearly haven't studied the data enough to know that B is a highly misleading statement, since it fails to take into account the lifecycle impacts of natural gas, including the huge amounts of diesel fuel burned to get it out of the ground, plus the brutal impacts of methane leakage from wells, pipelines, and compressor stations, on its way to market.
"...but with all the common sense that the Gas drilling industry has attained having learned from its mistakes"
WRONG - the gas industry is still screwing up right and left in PA and every other state (and by the way, you seem to misunderstand what common sense is)
"...and with the NYS DEC watching diligently..."
WRONG - DEC has never watched the gas industry diligently and it's certainly not about to start now - it's completely co-opted by the industry it's supposed to be regulating, and anyone who's been studying the issue with their eyes open knows this.. Western NY is a mess from conventional gas drilling (not even HD/HVHF). DEC was chided by a national O&G organization because it never wrote regulations for the industry after the 1992 GEIS. Now it has been shamed into a lame attempt to publish regs based on the *incomplete* SGEIS rather than waiting for the final SGEIS before basing regs on it. THE INDUSTRY has written much of the SGEIS, and you can bet the regulations, when released, will in virtually every way reflect industry influence.
CLARIFICATION... My EX-husband (Robert G. Lyon) and I used to own the 300 acres in Barton, NY together. I currently own (and have for years) more than half of the property mentioned in the story above. Please note that I am NOT affiliated with this man...and my acreage is not subject to any of his statements/decisions/choices/actions. Thank you. Mary Kuehlewind (formerly Mary K. Lyon)
I owe about 1/64 of an acre in an agriculture district west of the Finger Lakes in NYS. I live in a subdivision of 100 homes built within the last ten years. We are located on previously agricultural land and are surrounded on all sides by agriculture. The older village and township homes are clustered together around a small business center with a commercial area built along a two-lane state highway that is within steps from my home.
At least 51% of the total land in my township is agriculture but not all actively farmed. We have about 20 verticle conventional wells and numerous gas leases signed mostly to an independent gas operator. He wants to begin HVHF horizontal drilling as soon as NYS issues permits. Most likely drilling Utica shale gas. Some landowners will undoubtedly benefit from drilling. However, the town's 17 year old Comprehensive Plan, zoning and land use plans allow for farming, commercial and industrial activities in the same zones. All the land surrounding my subdivision is zoned this way.
With NYS SGEIS setbacks of 100 feet from our backdoor the impact from constant machinery noise, generators, trucks, drilling and construction activity, air emissions from truck exhaust, etc., dust, airborne contamination, human voices is threatening. The decibel noise will be unbearable and incompatible with being able to live peacefully in one's home. The necessary lights will make the nighttime sky history. The flaring of gas and compressor stations, pipes. All will be our very close neighbor 24/7.
There is nothing in SGEIS that will prevent HVHF drilling behind my small backyard. The independent gas operator has already talked about his perfect spot which is about 2000 feet north of my subdivision - the other side of the state road. For him it is a good location, he owns leases and has producing wells there. Access to water and interstate highway. GEIS says when drilling in an industrial land use area, no mitigation or further review is necessary since the impacts are already known and allowed for. He knows he will obtain a permit from DEC.
How am I to embrace this? Beyond the risks to air and water, I am facing profound impacts that will make my life and property worthless. From this one area, gas can be extracted from four square miles. The gas operator intends on drilling multiple wells and anticipates drilling here over the next eighteen years. I will have a home surrounded by high impact industrialization for the rest of my life. I do not have acres separating me from drilling. My only road exit will be the same one used by thousands of trucks.
I am not an environmentalist just a homeowner. I can't understand why NYS would permit this so close to homes. Do the policy makers think everyone living in rural NYS owns acres of land? My planned community has very small lots with dense clustering of homes so as to protect farm acreage from residential takeover. We provide a substantial tax base for the community without taking up much land. For us it is not IF HVHF happens but WHEN. Please consider my concern. I support energy development but not just anywhere.