You are here
Marcellus Shale Press Coverage
Secondary tabs
Elmira-area reaction to casino, fracking decisions
A decision announced Wednesday to grant a full-fledged casino license for Seneca County, not Tioga Downs in Nichols, surprised and disappointed Southern Tier leaders.
Meanwhile, New York's decision to keep a ban on hydraulic fracturing delighted environmental advocates while elected leaders called it the wrong decision.
Tioga Downs
"We were all just very, very disappointed and saddened with the news," said Tioga County, N.Y., Legislative Chair Martha Sauerbrey, who watched a broadcast of the casino decision with Tioga Downs staff on a large-screen TV in the racino's conference room.
Granting a full-fledged casino license to Tioga Downs would have benefited the entire Twin Tiers economically, she said. "The fact that Lago was named, to me, that is not in the Southern Tier. I do think that Tioga Downs will continue on. They will continue to have gambling and horse racing, and definitely be an asset to this region."
Getting the license in Nichols would have meant a hotel, conference center and entertainment venue. "That would have created jobs, many more jobs," she said. "I have heard (Tioga Downs owner Jeff Gural) say we will still survive, still move ahead, just not at the level we were hoping."
George Miner, president of Southern Tier Economic Growth, said announcements an hour apart on no fracking and the casino license was "like being punched in the mouth and kicked in the stomach."
"I had to search on the Internet to find where Tyre is ... I'm sure it's a lovely town, but it's nowhere near the Southern Tier," Miner said. "I don't see how there will be any positive impact from this casino on the Southern Tier — certainly not any jobs for Southern Tier residents, no new tax revenues," Miner said.
Chemung County Executive Tom Santulli said he was shocked that Tioga Downs did not get the casino license, because of the investment it has already made. "It's certainly a punch in the nose to the owner of Tioga Downs, who has invested a ton of money," Santulli said.
It is also a missed opportunity for business growth in the region due to increased visitors, he said. "They spend money on the way to wine country. They frequent restaurants. They go by three million square feet of shopping," Santulli said. "It would have been a really nice added piece to wine country, the glass museum, the tourism."
Combined with the ban on fracking, it was not a good day for the region, state Sen. Tom O'Mara, R-Big Flats, said.
"I strongly believed Jeff Gural and everyone at Tioga Downs put forth the most clear-cut proposal in keeping with the commission's stated goals to locate these casinos where they are most needed," O'Mara said. "A new and expanded Tioga Downs would have bolstered one of the state's weakest local economies, preserved important livelihoods for hundreds of workers, created new jobs, and generated badly needed revenue to provide additional support for education and local governments to help ease the burden on local property taxpayers."
Fracking
Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, was among the region's elected leaders who were extremely disappointed with New York's fracking ban.
"This move effectively blocks the development of natural gas and oil resources in New York state," Reed said. "This is devastating news for the Southern Tier economy … This decision makes it even more difficult to replace the good jobs that have already left due to New York's unfriendly business climate.
"Once again Albany shows that it wants to enact an extreme liberal agenda rather than care about individual property rights and job opportunities," Reed said.
STEG's Miner said, "It's fairly obvious that today's decision was made years ago. Another four years of study is not going to change anything. With over 30 other states allowing fracking, there certainly is enough information available to understand the impacts, whether social, economic, or health wise."
Sauerbrey and Santulli both said their counties, and the region, would have benefited economically if fracking was allowed. Neither county had taken a position on fracking because it always was a state, not local, decision.
"I think the majority of people in Tioga County supported fracking because we have a lot of farmland. This was an opportunity to provide for their families," Sauerbrey said. "I am not surprised by the decision. I am glad it is done. I am tired of talking about it. Now we can move on."
Santulli said Chemung County had put a commission together several years ago to examine how fracking would have impacted the county. He said it involved working with police, fire departments and even speaking in Albany about the county's preparation, but the last couple of years have just been about waiting for a decision, he said.
Santulli said the county saw economic benefits firsthand because of the number of gas companies that located in the county while doing drilling and hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania, where it is permitted. "Chemung County has benefited from Pennsylvania fracking because of our interstate, rail and airport," he said, explaining the county led the state in room tax and sales tax growth in 2010 and 2011.
"Whether they stay here now is a chapter that hasn't been written yet," Santulli said of the gas and support industries still operating out of Chemung County.
Sandra Steingraber of Trumansburg, a distinguished scholar in biology at Ithaca College, said she was "thrilled" with New York's continued ban on fracking. She is among the activists who have been arrested and jailed for blockading the gates to Crestwood Midstream, which plans to expand methane gas storage in underground salt caverns in the Town of Reading, Schuyler County.
"Actually I heard the news while I was helping to oversee the civil disobedience movement of 29 arrests (Wednesday) at the gates of Crestwood Midstream," she said. "In one ear, I was listening to the proceedings from the cabinet in Albany while I was watching 29 residents led by local musicians be arrested for blockading the gates."
She said the state's decision, and reasoning for it, matched what many working in public health, like herself, have concluded.
"It's a complete victory, a wise decision. That is what the science shows," she said, adding the governor and the (health) commissioner both said troubling signs exist regarding fracking. "You don't place people in harm's way while the science goes on … you can't use people as guinea pigs."
She said she was at the Schuyler County Sheriff's Office when those arrested Wednesday were processed and released and first heard about the fracking decision.
"They picked up their instruments, banjos, guitars, and spontaneously burst into song. There was literally singing and dancing on the streets of Watkins Glen," she said.
Walter Hang, an Ithaca industrial-contamination activist and owner of Toxics Targeting, an environmental database, was equally enthusiastic about the state's decision.
"I am enthralled. This is a stupendous victory. It's the result of five years of unrelenting, hard work," Hang said.
It also took him by surprise, he said, based on tips and communications he had received prior to the announcement that said fracking would be banned statewide, but perhaps allowed on a limited or trial basis in the Southern Tier.
"This is just an incredible red letter day," Hang said. "It shows what concerned citizens can achieve when they are knowledgeable, sophisticated about these very complicated proceedings."
Mixed Emotions After Fracking Decision
NEW YORK STATE (WENY) - Deep shale hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale has been a topic that's divided opinions across the state.
And after years of controversy, protesting, and countless studies, New York State finally gave us an answer on fracking.
Early next year, Governor Cuomo's administration will move to prohibit fracking in the state, which has been on moratorium since 2008.
A few of the big reasons include unresolved health issues and questionable economic benefits.
Cuomo said he is deferring to Enviornmental Commissioner Joe Martens and Acting Health Commissioner Howard Zucker in making the decision. Martens said he recommends a ban.
On Wednesday, Martens and Zucker summarized the findings of their enviornmental and health reviews. They said shale gas development using high-volume hydraulic fracturing carried unacceptable risks that haven't been sufficiently studied.
The Department of Enviornmental Conservation will put out a final environmental impact statement early next year, and then issue an order prohibiting fracking.
The decision was good news for long-time opponents of the controversial topic, but many believe it robs people and the area of economic opportunities.
For New York farmers, the possibility of freacking meant profits.
Many farmers across the state leased their land, or allowed for mineral rights, hoping one day fracking would be allowed....and now that day won't come any time soon.
Ashur Terwilliger, President of the Chemung County Farm Bureau says although he had the opportunity to lease his land, he never did because the deal wasn't right. But he said, the profits would have been helpful with keeping his local farm in business and passing it on to his grandchildren in the future. For those who did sign leases, the next step is still unknown.
But Terwilliger said the benefits of fracking in the state would have gone beyond just the farmers - it would help the entire area.
And the county agrees. Chemung County Executive Tom Santulli said being on the border of Pennsylvania, the county has seen slight benefits. But they were ready for more.
"It certainly doesn't help the investment of jobs here in New York," Santulli said, "But again the governor's made a decision and that's it."
On the other hand, those who strongly oppose fracking were thrilled with today's decision because the possible health hazards were bigger than the economic benefits.
Walter Hang, the President of Toxics Targeting, said today's decision was an unbelievable victory.
"I think they've made a clear decision that the environmental and public health hazards of shale fracking can not be managed," Hang said. "They're not even known in their entirety, and so they've made a very historic decision to proceed cautiously, and because they don't know it can be done safely they're simply not going to allow it anywhere in New York."
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.
Pump up the pressure on Cuomo on fracking: Glick
An anti-fracking forum organized by Assemblymember Deborah Glick urged voters a week before Election Day to step up the pressure on Governor Cuomo to ban hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in New York State.
Glick and the forum panel of Upstate opponents of the potentially dangerous drilling technique said the current moratorium, imposed seven years ago by the previous governor, David Paterson, could end at any time.
The state Assembly has passed a bill that would make the moratorium permanent, but the Republican-dominated state Senate has defeated the measure, Glick told the Oct. 29 town hall meeting at The New School.
Walter Hang, an environmental consultant based in Ithaca, N.Y., and Erin Heaton Meyer, an anti-fracking activist from Chenango County, joined Glick in urging voters to keep e-mailing and phoning Cuomo to ban fracking.
Opponents and supporters of fracking both say Cuomo has been ducking the issue throughout his first term as governor. The fracking process involves drilling vertically into a shale formation about a mile beneath the surface, then drilling horizontally for thousands of feet and injecting, under high pressure, 5 million to 7 million gallons of water laced with various chemicals to fracture the shale to release trapped methane gas. The Marcellus Shale, which contains methane gas, underlies the state’s Southern Tier counties along the Pennsylvania border.
Gas producers and landowners who lease their properties to drilling firms contend that fracking could be done safely. But opponents say the process imperils groundwater, threatens air quality and degrades the land surface.
“We’ve been driving the governor crazy [with demonstrations and messages] and we have to keep it up,” said Hang.
“We are going to continue organizing and keeping the pressure up,” Glick promised.
The fracking threat to the environment is bound to increase as the prospect of climate change increases, Glick told last week’s forum.
“We’ve already passed a 100-year flood and a 300-year flood in the last few years,” she said. “The potential for more could turn well sites into disaster areas.”
Hang hailed the state’s Court of Appeals ruling in June that local townships can ban fracking under local zoning laws.
“It’s a hugely important decision,” Hang said. Furthermore, on Oct. 16 the Court of Appeals denied a motion to rehear the case.
However, another critical time for the fracking issue could come soon. The governor’s office indicated earlier this year that a state Department of Health analysis of fracking’s health impact would be completed at the end of this year. A recommendation following the analysis would move forward the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on fracking regulations.
Fracking opponents, however, say the health analysis, ordered by Cuomo last year, is no review at all.
“It involves five-year-old data — there’s been a lot of development in five years — and is being done without any hearings,” Hang said.
Former state Health Commissioner Nirav Shah said last year that the health analysis would be completed in 2013, but no announcement ever came. Then, in April of this year, Shah resigned as Health commissioner, and Cuomo has not replaced him. That leaves the matter in the hands of Acting Health Commissioner Howard Zucker. Because of the election and pending the appointment of a new Health commissioner, the results of the health analysis are not expected to be announced soon.
While Cuomo has held off making a final decision on fracking, his administration in 2012 indicated that if and when the environmental impact statement is approved, the state would not allow fracking in the New York City and Syracuse watershed counties and in other drinking-water sources. However, drilling permits would be issued in the beginning for a three-year demonstration period for five counties in the heart of the state’s Marcellus area: Broome, Chenango, Chemung, Steuben and Tioga.
To the consternation of anti-fracking environmental groups, the National Resources Defense Council — an important environmental group and anti-fracking advocate — had mentioned a similar option in a response to the state environmental study.
Yet, Kate Sinding, a senior attorney with N.R.D.C., said at the time that the option was not an endorsement of the plan, but rather a product of a legal critique of the impact statement. The environmental statement is required by law to examine all options, and the five-county demonstration proposal was just one of the options that N.R.D.C. said had to be examined.
“We were clear that we were neither specifically endorsing any of these alternatives nor were we presupposing that any level of development be approved,” Sinding said last year.
Nevertheless, Meyer told the forum last week that the five counties are where much of the state’s food is grown and that fracking would imperil farms.
Audience questions submitted indicated concerns about related issues, including Port Ambrose, a proposal to build a deepwater liquid natural gas (L.N.G.) facility 19 miles off Long Island and New Jersey. Under the proposal, gas liquefied by super-cooling would be loaded off ships by pipeline for import during high-demand periods.
Another question posed to Glick asked why she did not join the fight to stop the Spectra gas pipeline between Linden, N.J., and Gansevoort Peninsula in Manhattan. The trans-Hudson pipeline received federal approval last year despite opposition by local groups.
“I chose to put most of my energy into the fracking issue — it’s a state issue and I’m a state legislator,” Glick responded. “The pipeline was a federal agency steamroller.”
Fracking Issues Discussed After Cuomo Wins Another Term
One issue that wasn't on the ballot but was very much on the mind of many voters in the area: fracking.
Now that Governor Cuomo has won re-election, could his victory finally spur a decision on whether the state will allow the drilling practice?
Gas supporters say the time has come to allow fracking, while anti-fracking activists worry Tuesday night's election win will lead the Governor to give drilling the green light.
"I think the Governor is going to do his best to go forward. I've always believed that. By his own admission he says he's going to complete the Department of Health review by the end of the year and if that is done than he can adopt a final SGEIS and permits can be issued," said Walter Hang, President of Toxics Targeting.
"Now's the time to do it. I think he got a clear mandate from the election yesterday. If you take a look from Broome all the way to Chautauqua County in Western New York, every major legislator throughout the Southern Tier is in support of gas," said Scott Kurkoski, attorney for the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York.
Kurkoski adds over the past few years anti-gas candidates have consistently lost in local races. Hang says anti-fracking activists will keep the pressure on Cuomo to not allow drilling. He says the state's health review is being done in secret and based on outdated information.