Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Wall Street Journal opinion piece on fracking

This guy sums the "Anti" movement up nicely. He shines a light on "the elephant in the room."

Here: Siegel: Fracking, Poverty and the New Liberal Gentry - WSJ.com

Below, I highlighted some important points/paragraphs

Fred Siegel: Fracking, Poverty and the New Liberal Gentry
The energy bonanza has bypassed New York, where socialites and celebrities have come out in force to stop it.

By
Fred Siegel


Nov. 7, 2013 6:13 p.m. ET

The transformation of American liberalism over the past half-century is nowhere more apparent than in the disputes now roiling a relatively obscure section of upstate New York. In 1965, as part of his "war on poverty," President Lyndon Johnson created the Appalachian Regional Commission. Among the areas to be served by the commission were the Southern Tier counties of New York state, including Broome, Tioga and Chemung. The commission's central aim was to "Increase job opportunities and per capita income in Appalachia to reach parity with the nation."

Like so many Great Society antipoverty programs, the effort largely failed. The Southern Tier counties remain much as they appeared in the 1960s, pocked by deserted farms and abandoned businesses, largely untouched by the prosperity that blessed much of America over the past five decades.

Beginning about a dozen years ago, remarkable improvements in natural-gas drilling by means of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, seemed to promise a way out of poverty. The massive Marcellus Shale Formation under New York and Pennsylvania has proved to be "the most lucrative natural gas play in the U.S.," Business Week recently noted, because the shale produces high-quality gas and is easily shipped to New York and Philadelphia.

In Pennsylvania, a state long familiar with carbon production through oil drilling and coal mining, Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell backed fracking during his tenure from 2003-11, and the state has experienced a boom in jobs and income. Between 2007 and 2011, in Pennsylvania counties with more than 200 fracking wells, per capita income rose 19%, compared with an 8% increase in counties with no wells, as petroleum analyst Gregg Laskoski wrote for U.S. News & World Report in August.

In New York, the potential natural-gas bonanza has been stillborn. Political support for fracking came largely from Southern Tier landowners scratching out a living on land much of which has been left fallow. These supporters sometimes referred to the environmental benefits of natural gas as opposed to coal. But their core argument was that fracking offered the only chance to rescue a dying region. Many landowners were being crushed by the heavy burden of New York's high taxes—among the highest property taxes in the nation—and by regulation that made it hard to eke out a living from small dairy herds.

The landowners have been no match for an antifracking coalition that drew on the liberal well-to-do and celebrities, including Yoko Ono and Richard Plunz, a professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, whose primary residences are in New York City but who also own second homes upstate. These better-known opponents have been joined by other progressives, often from Manhattan, in alliance with the liberal gentry of upstate university towns such as Ithaca, Binghamton and Oneonta. Fracking is occurring in 31 states and has been approved for California and Illinois. But in New York, the antifrackers turned opposition to fracking into a litmus test for liberals.

The antifracking movement has taken on something of the anti-industrial Tory ethos of mid-19th-century England. The romantic sentiments underlying the antifracking movement have been expressed by Adelaide Gomer, the Duncan Hines heiress, who directs the Park Foundation of Ithaca. The foundation finances much of the antifracking movement. "Hydrofracking," Ms. Gomer wrote in a 2010 petition, "will turn our area into an industrial site. It will ruin the ambience, the beauty of the region. But, moreover, it will poison our aquifers. We can live without gas, but we cannot live without water."

Fracking supporters know that the process occurs far below aquifers and is not a danger to water supplies—which in any event proponents would have no interest in poisoning. These advocates are, in the standard sense, conservationists concerned with preserving the land even as they use it. The antifrackers, by contrast, seem most interested in maintaining the upstate region as a pristine setting for gracious living and tourism. Unlike the 19th-century British Tories, who felt a paternal obligation to look after the well-being of the peasants they governed, today's liberal gentry operates on a narrowly self-interested basis.

In 2008, the administration of New York's Gov. David Paterson seemed generally positive about fracking, even while emphasizing the need for updated regulations to protect the environment. But while Mr. Paterson was considering the problem, HBO presented "Gaslands," an agitprop film that depicted Pennsylvania as "getting fracked to hell." The film sensationally portrayed water coming out of kitchen water taps being ignited with a flame—the result of fracking, we were told, though the phenomenon was the result of naturally occurring methane.

"Gaslands" had an enormous impact, and it was buttressed by a series of articles in the New York Times NYT -1.33% so biased against fracking that the newspaper's public editor twice apologized for them. The media's antifracking message meshed well with the Park Foundation's subsidies of protests around the region and in Albany. Faced with a surge of antifracking sentiment, the state in 2008 imposed a moratorium.

Five years later, the supposedly temporary ban to allow the study of health and regulatory considerations remains in place. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who took office in 2010, last year floated a compromise. The areas near the reservoirs for New York and Syracuse, the liberal gentry of Ithaca and the wealthy retirees of Cooperstown would be able to maintain the status quo. The 100 towns that had passed local bans on fracking would have their wishes respected. Mr. Cuomo would have confined fracking areas to sections of the Southern Tier Counties of Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Steuben and Tioga. In those areas, the shale is deep within the earth and there are no aquifers—even antifracking activists would have a hard time finding a threat to the water table.

The proposed compromise might have seemed reasonable. But the antifrackers who had demonized the gas industry responded with a resounding, no. At a rally earlier this year, actor Mark Ruffalo, another antifracking celebrity, warned the politically ambitious Mr. Cuomo: "We'll cream you if you open New York state to fracking." On Wednesday last week in Albany, the state capital, actress Debra Winger was a prominent speaker at an antifracking protest.

Dick Downey, a retired teacher and fracking supporter living in Otego, N.Y., wrote in his local paper, the Daily Star, in 2011 that "the class divide in the argument over drilling in New York is the elephant in the living room. Everyone's aware of it but no one is talking about it. It pits generational farmers against the newly arrived, well-to-do pensioners against those just hanging on."

Poverty and social class don't seem significant issues for the residents of Ithaca, the center of the antifracking movement. Perched on the edge of beautiful Lake Cayuga, one of New York's Finger Lakes, Ithaca is home to Cornell University, Ithaca College and the Park Foundation. Ithaca claims to have more restaurants per capita than New York City. In the 2000 presidential election, more residents voted for Ralph Nader than for George W. Bush.

Great Society liberalism had, for all its faults, an ideal of inclusiveness. The environmental anti-industrial liberalism is implicitly organized around exclusion. Environmentalism, with its powerful not-in-my-backyard and not-in-your-backyard currents in upstate New York, has become an ideological cover for the pursuit of self-interest. New York's liberals are fighting to preserve the status quo, poverty and all.


Mr. Siegel is a scholar in residence at Saint Francis College in Brooklyn and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation. This essay is adapted from an article that will be published next spring in Society magazine.
 
There was a time when reading the WSJ's op-ed sec could blow the top clean off your head. Pulitzer prize and Nobel winners, CEO's, wall street titans, deans, professors ect. ect.. all dissecting issues and laying out factual arguments with no political drama or spin. This is black, thats white.


The paper was for the people who didn't "learn" about the issues watching cable news.


God I miss that…


thanks Rupert:finger:
 
What's great about the article is the suggestion that the liberal elite that opposes fracking is out of touch with those impoverished white folks who stand to gain so much from having their water supply fracked...

Now follow this leap of logic...

The fracking companies are, by implication, in touch with the needs of the impoverished white folks.

The rich gas companies get the little guy.

And rich liberals don't.

Perhaps the impoverished white kids could work for the fracking companies? Child labor laws, another liberal plan to stop poor white kids from getting out of poverty, and stop the rich companies who would gladly employ them.
 
The gas industry has done miracles here in Pa. Just drive through "beautiful" Montrose Pa to see all the beauty and smiling faces it has caused. There, there is a chicken in every pot and and new vehicle in every driveway. Life is good. The blue birds sing all day and everyone is just rolling in money. I myself, dont know which job to take as there are so many to pick from. Its a shame that the people in NY cant just get in there car and drive here to see for themselves. (sarcasism for those who dont get it)
 
Let me guess, you guys don't favor gas drilling...

In response to an opinion piece we have "the guy isn't smart enough" which points us to, "then his opinion is not valid."

And GB, misrepresents the argument the guy is making using the foundation laid prior by the antis(the demonization of all big business) and somehow RACE to subvert the guys assertion. What, is this guy not a liberal enough Democrat for ya? :)

This is like being at an anti-gas rally... well except for the no funny costumes of dying animals and dead babies and plastic jugs full of brown water.
 
The gas industry has done miracles here in Pa. Just drive through "beautiful" Montrose Pa to see all the beauty and smiling faces it has caused. There, there is a chicken in every pot and and new vehicle in every driveway. Life is good. The blue birds sing all day and everyone is just rolling in money. I myself, dont know which job to take as there are so many to pick from. Its a shame that the people in NY cant just get in there car and drive here to see for themselves. (sarcasism for those who dont get it)

It seems as if you're missing some factual evidence from PA...

According to the most recent figures from the state Department of Labor and Industry**, 28,155 people work directly in oil and gas industries.

The rest (203,814 jobs) are ancillary, which means everyone who works in industries like trucking, engineering, and road construction gets counted, whether they have anything to do with gas or not.

The administration also touts the money brought in through the Act 13 impact fee and corporate business taxes since the boom began: $406 million and $1.7 billion respectively.

AND

The analysts crunched the numbers, and between 2005 and 2012 almost 90 percent of the job growth in Pennsylvania at that time came from oil and gas jobs in the upstream and midstream.

AND

MARCELLUS SHALE RELATED
INDUSTRIES EMPLOYMENT:
SUMMARY STATISTICS
Employment (2009Q1 to 2013Q1):
• Core industries were up 17,414 (+162.1%).
• Ancillary industries were up 13,352 (+7.0%).
• All industries increased 63,078 (+1.2%).
• 2013Q1 Marcellus Shale related industries total employment is 231,969.
Establishments (2009Q1 to 2013Q1):
• 1,114 establishments were added (347 core, 767 ancillary).
• This represented 45.2% growth in the core industries and 6.3% growth in
the ancillary industries; over the same time period, PA experienced 1.6%
growth for all industries.
• Marcellus Shale related industries totaled 14,109 establishments in
2013Q1.
Wages (2012Q2 through 2013Q1):
• The average wage across all industries was about $48,500.
• The average wage in the core industries was about $83,300 which was
approximately $34,800 greater than the average for all industries.
• The average wage in the ancillary industries was about $65,000, which
was approximately $16,500 greater than the average for all industries.
New Hires (2010Q2 to 2013Q2):
• Statewide new hires in the core industries were 35.0% higher in 2013Q2
than in 2010Q2.
• Statewide new hires in the ancillary industries were 17.9% higher in
2013Q2 than in 2010Q2.
• New hire counts also increased both in core industries (2.2%) and in
Ancillary industries (6.6%) from 2012Q2 to 2013Q2.
• Statewide new hires across all industries were 21.6% higher in 2013Q2
than in 2010Q2; statewide new hires across all industries increased by
8.7% from 2012Q2 to 2013Q2.
Online Job Postings (August 2013):
• There were about 4,100 online job postings statewide in core and
ancillary industries.
 
(putting down croquet mallet and picking up mint julep)

I think there's a lot to the idea that we white-collar, urban "Antis" need to think twice before telling impoverished rural counties what they should think about fracking. (Full disclosure: I count myself in the Anti category, although my position would be most accurately described as pro-slow-fracking.)

Buried somewhere in this op-ed, amidst all the silly pseudo-populism (the "gentry") is the uncomfortable truth that there's a level of self-interest in the urban conservationist stance. You don't have to think too hard to realize that the enthusiasm of struggling upstate counties for fracking is totally understandable. But I don't think most of my anti-fracking neighbors really get that far.

If, like me, you flee the city and cruise out to the Bard Parker access at junction pool to enjoy clean water and wild fish, you shouldn't turn a blind eye to the fact that you are fishing in front of a closed down factory and an abandoned lumber mill that together provided more than 1000 jobs to the area's residents. We probably wouldn't wish for a world in which there were 1000 more guides on the West Branch, so suggesting that the residents of that area should pin their hopes on outdoor activities and tourism rather than fracking is problematic on a few levels.

But having said all that, this op-ed is basically a bait-and-switch. He mentions poverty in the title and acts like fracking is a valid local anti-poverty plan, but there's no evidence here, or in FF's numbers to support that idea. He mentions that per capita income increased in fracked PA counties, but adding a few millionaires will increase per capita income, without touching the poverty rate.

If history is any guide, the rising tide of a local boom in natural resource extraction does not lift all boats. Presumably, legitimately poor residents of lower tier counties (not working class residents, poor residents) do not own large tracts of land that will make them the beneficiaries of lucrative gas leases. Instead, they will see their rents increase, as affordable housing becomes scarce with an influx of roughnecks and land men. No low-skilled local jobs will be created, as work crews will come from out of the area. If you look at job growth across Pennsylvania, you'll see massive economic benefits from fracking. But let's not act like gas companies roll into town and start hiring impoverished locals. I've sat at diner counters in western PA surrounded by gas workers from out of town or out of state. At best, the local tax base will increase, but so will the draw on that tax base. At worst, fracking will produce the same kinds of local social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, violence) that have proliferated in oil or coal boom towns. In either scenario, landowners and local businesses will probably do very well. But let's not pretend like the poor will benefit.

Anyway, the point is, as WBDLuver suggests, fracking is not a slam dunk for improving local social or economic conditions. This writer acts like it is, which then allows him to turn all of his attention onto the elitist liberal urban gentry. Bait-and-switch.
 
(putting down croquet mallet and picking up mint julep)

I think there's a lot to the idea that we white-collar, urban "Antis" need to think twice before telling impoverished rural counties what they should think about fracking. (Full disclosure: I count myself in the Anti category, although my position would be most accurately described as pro-slow-fracking.)

Buried somewhere in this op-ed, amidst all the silly pseudo-populism (the "gentry") is the uncomfortable truth that there's a level of self-interest in the urban conservationist stance. You don't have to think too hard to realize that the enthusiasm of struggling upstate counties for fracking is totally understandable. But I don't think most of my anti-fracking neighbors really get that far.

If, like me, you flee the city and cruise out to the Bard Parker access at junction pool to enjoy clean water and wild fish, you shouldn't turn a blind eye to the fact that you are fishing in front of a closed down factory and an abandoned lumber mill that together provided more than 1000 jobs to the area's residents. We probably wouldn't wish for a world in which there were 1000 more guides on the West Branch, so suggesting that the residents of that area should pin their hopes on outdoor activities and tourism rather than fracking is problematic on a few levels.

But having said all that, this op-ed is basically a bait-and-switch. He mentions poverty in the title and acts like fracking is a valid local anti-poverty plan, but there's no evidence here, or in FF's numbers to support that idea. He mentions that per capita income increased in fracked PA counties, but adding a few millionaires will increase per capita income, without touching the poverty rate.

If history is any guide, the rising tide of a local boom in natural resource extraction does not lift all boats. Presumably, legitimately poor residents of lower tier counties (not working class residents, poor residents) do not own large tracts of land that will make them the beneficiaries of lucrative gas leases. Instead, they will see their rents increase, as affordable housing becomes scarce with an influx of roughnecks and land men. No low-skilled local jobs will be created, as work crews will come from out of the area. If you look at job growth across Pennsylvania, you'll see massive economic benefits from fracking. But let's not act like gas companies roll into town and start hiring impoverished locals. I've sat at diner counters in western PA surrounded by gas workers from out of town or out of state. At best, the local tax base will increase, but so will the draw on that tax base. At worst, fracking will produce the same kinds of local social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, violence) that have proliferated in oil or coal boom towns. In either scenario, landowners and local businesses will probably do very well. But let's not pretend like the poor will benefit.

Anyway, the point is, as WBDLuver suggests, fracking is not a slam dunk for improving local social or economic conditions. This writer acts like it is, which then allows him to turn all of his attention onto the elitist liberal urban gentry. Bait-and-switch.

Thank you for your even keeled response.

The money received by landowners...
What do you think happens to it?

First, it is taxed. State and federal income taxes. The bigger the checks the higher the tax bracket... So, ALL the people in the state AND the country benefit.

Second, what's left, is saved... other people can benefit by using that money. Invested... again, business and the people they support can benefit. SPENT... PROBABLY, most is spent locally. Contractors, car dealers, etc... And of course there's a ripple effect. That benefits anyone who wants to work in those fields.

An article on hiring Pennsylvanians(in part):

Pennsylvanians made up a smaller share of new workers in the local shale gas industry in 2012, according to industry data released on Wednesday, underscoring a shift here from drilling to pipeline work.

State residents accounted for 56.8 percent of new hires among drillers, pipeline companies and contractors in the Marcellus Shale Coalition. That's down from 72 percent the year prior, according to annual surveys the group does of its workforce.

Regional trends are working against Pennsylvania. Drilling rigs have left parts of the state for gas fields in Ohio, which contributed 19 percent of the new workforce in 2012, up 6 percentage points. Pennsylvania also has shifted to more pipeline work and doesn't have the skilled welders that sector needs, said the coalition's John Augustine.

“It's kind of like shale 101 happening again,” said Augustine, who coordinates the coalition's workforce committee that surveyed 101 companies. “Four years ago, we saw the same trend with (drillers), and now we believe we're seeing the same trend with the (pipeline) segment.”

The industry has been widely criticized for importing workers to fill shale jobs — especially for higher-paying technical and skilled positions — and has blamed the lack of experienced workers. But the state and the private sector ramped up programs to equip local residents with the needed training and skills.

Augustine said that pipeline work requires a different set of skills, such as welding, and years of experience. Generally, he said, it is 15 to 20 years for pipeline welding. But he was optimistic that hiring will pick up once residents received the required training.

“Such welding skills are critically important,” said Penn State economist Timothy Kelsey. “If it isn't done properly, this is a huge safety issue. So it is good that the industry is having people do the welding who know what they're doing, irrespective of where they live.”

The last 18 months also have brought a transition in the gas industry in Pennsylvania. Once marked by unfettered growth, industry hiring moderated as companies trimmed costs because of low prices for the gas they sell.

The industry has shed jobs in 2013, down about 1,100 workers through June, according to data the state Department of Labor and Industry released July 30. It had 36,100 employees — more than half of whom are Pennsylvanians, department spokeswoman Sara Goulet said.

The state's losses could continue this year, too. Coalition members reported that Western Pennsylvania and Ohio are likely to be the two prime sources of about 4,000 new hires they expect to make for work in the Marcellus and Utica shales.

State officials have not researched what's behind the trends, Goulet said. More than 70 percent of its new gas industry hires came from within the state just two years ago, she said.

Nearly half of the drilled wells in the state had not been producing at the end of 2012, a sign the industry needed to get more pipelines to connect wells to markets, experts have said. The pipeline workforce is often transient, with specialty workers traveling the country, setting up camps for weeks or months at a time to do a job. It makes sense that the industry imported talent for the work in Pennsylvania, Kelsey said.

As drillers scrambled to create a new industry from scratch, as many as 70 percent to 80 percent of the workers came from outside Pennsylvania, according to research Kelsey helped assemble in 2011 for the Marcellus Shale Education & Training Center.

That has changed, in large part because hiring local workers benefits the industry, experts said. It's cheaper to have a local workforce than to have to pay people to relocate. Coalition members want to do that only as a last resort, Augustine said.

“When you're trying to hire a lot of people quickly, it's impossible to source those jobs locally,” said Chris Briem, a regional economist at the University of Pittsburgh. “Eventually, folks do gain the skills on the job or in training programs.”

The government and private sector have spent millions of dollars to bolster local training programs. The federal government has pumped $20 million from 2010 to 2012 into the ShaleNet consortium of organizations, including Westmoreland County Community College.

Pittsburgh Technical Institute this year broke ground on a $3.5 million center in North Fayette that will house classrooms and labs for teaching its oil and gas program, including welding. It got a $750,000 state grant.

The coalition does its annual survey in part to help build those programs, Augustine said. It has a committee of about 40 human resources executives who collaborate on industry trends, and then talk to technical schools and colleges about how they can tailor their education programs to openings in the industry, he said.

“We need these people; the schools are training these people. How do they know what to train if we aren't telling them?” Augustine said.
 
(putting down croquet mallet and picking up mint julep)

I think there's a lot to the idea that we white-collar, urban "Antis" need to think twice before telling impoverished rural counties what they should think about fracking. (Full disclosure: I count myself in the Anti category, although my position would be most accurately described as pro-slow-fracking.)

Buried somewhere in this op-ed, amidst all the silly pseudo-populism (the "gentry") is the uncomfortable truth that there's a level of self-interest in the urban conservationist stance. You don't have to think too hard to realize that the enthusiasm of struggling upstate counties for fracking is totally understandable. But I don't think most of my anti-fracking neighbors really get that far.

If, like me, you flee the city and cruise out to the Bard Parker access at junction pool to enjoy clean water and wild fish, you shouldn't turn a blind eye to the fact that you are fishing in front of a closed down factory and an abandoned lumber mill that together provided more than 1000 jobs to the area's residents. We probably wouldn't wish for a world in which there were 1000 more guides on the West Branch, so suggesting that the residents of that area should pin their hopes on outdoor activities and tourism rather than fracking is problematic on a few levels.

But having said all that, this op-ed is basically a bait-and-switch. He mentions poverty in the title and acts like fracking is a valid local anti-poverty plan, but there's no evidence here, or in FF's numbers to support that idea. He mentions that per capita income increased in fracked PA counties, but adding a few millionaires will increase per capita income, without touching the poverty rate.

If history is any guide, the rising tide of a local boom in natural resource extraction does not lift all boats. Presumably, legitimately poor residents of lower tier counties (not working class residents, poor residents) do not own large tracts of land that will make them the beneficiaries of lucrative gas leases. Instead, they will see their rents increase, as affordable housing becomes scarce with an influx of roughnecks and land men. No low-skilled local jobs will be created, as work crews will come from out of the area. If you look at job growth across Pennsylvania, you'll see massive economic benefits from fracking. But let's not act like gas companies roll into town and start hiring impoverished locals. I've sat at diner counters in western PA surrounded by gas workers from out of town or out of state. At best, the local tax base will increase, but so will the draw on that tax base. At worst, fracking will produce the same kinds of local social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, violence) that have proliferated in oil or coal boom towns. In either scenario, landowners and local businesses will probably do very well. But let's not pretend like the poor will benefit.

Anyway, the point is, as WBDLuver suggests, fracking is not a slam dunk for improving local social or economic conditions. This writer acts like it is, which then allows him to turn all of his attention onto the elitist liberal urban gentry. Bait-and-switch.

My friend, this is the most intelligent post ever written to NEFF.

That honor had belonged to Andy B, with honorable mentions to Catskill Mountain Man and Danme for their contributions.
 
While it is certainly true that the liberals have largely taken the lead against fracking in NY, I wonder how they feel when they hear "their President" taking nearly full credit for fracking all over the nation as if he created the concept himself? That's my political mind-bender for those of you on the left.

On the economic side, I come down about where mob201 does. It clearly has a positive economic impact in the areas that are fracked and the rest of the nation is benefiting via lower energy prices. But unlike coal in these same areas, gas extraction goes very quickly through a given region. That is not a comment for or against drilling, it is a simple fact that the economics in any given shale area are short lived. Coal and oil extraction seems to last decades versus the two or three years a given county may see positive economic benefits from gas drilling, so the two are not the same. Again, that does not mean we should or should not frack, it is just an observation that fracking will not provide any long-term economic benefits regionally and certainly not beyond a single generation.

What those impoverished Appalachian counties need are sustainable jobs. Fracking doesn't provide them. Again, I don't say that to stand against that form of extraction. One could easily argue they need both short and long term jobs right now and almost always have. On my personal support or lack thereof regarding gas drilling, as a staunch conservative, I have slowly moved from zero fracking to a let's take it slowly approach. I still fear unintended consequences many years down the line, but I have to admit that it has yet to be the nightmare it was made out to be, and we do need the energy. If the Middle East melts down worse than it has to date, and it looks very possible that could happen well within our lifetimes, then we will need fracking, nuclear, wind, coal, oil, solar and anything else we can come up with to offset that political instability.

And for the record, this conservative survived college in liberal Ithaca, NY :)
 
Can't we all just get along?!



In the grand scheme of things, all you cry babies care about is your stupid Delaware, and those trashy wild brown trout from Europe!

Psshh...who wants to catch those things when you can live in Alaska and catch fish from the Ocean loaded with radiation form Fukushima!
 
Can't we all just get along?!



In the grand scheme of things, all you cry babies care about is your stupid Delaware, and those trashy wild brown trout from Europe!

Psshh...who wants to catch those things when you can live in Alaska and catch fish from the Ocean loaded with radiation form Fukushima!

Be quiet, centerpinner


:)
 
I am still on the fence on Fracking. We all can agree that The US must become energy independent. Fracking is a viable way to achieve that goal. I also agree that in the short term, it will financially benefit the region. Where I am skeptical is that history has shown us when a industry uses up the available resources or it no longer economically viable, the site is usually abandoned. I am not a big fan of the Antis. This is one of the factors that contribute to their cause. I have not read any long term plan to address that problem. I am not talking about the long term possible leaching of frack fluids into ground water. The studies on both sides give compelling arguments. It is most likely somewhere in the middle on what the long term effects are going to be. So does anyone know what the plan is when the all the gas is extracted? What is the long term plan for monitoring and capping the wells? Who is responsible for removing legacy infrastructure? The Catskills are going to be webbed with gas pipe. Is there a plan for the removal of it when the gas is gone?

One of my concerns is when all the profits are made. It is all going to be walked away from. The Federal government is going to be on the hook to remediate it. We have enough sites in this country were the tax payers are left with the burden of cleaning up someone else mess. We do not need another one. If there is no long term plan and funds in place to remove legacy infrastructure. It is inevitable that the tax payers will be the ones floating the bill. If the long term economic negative impact is greater then the positive for the short term , is it a good idea?

Every thing I read is about the short term.
So does anyone know whet the long term plan is or if there is any?
 
I am still on the fence on Fracking. We all can agree that The US must become energy independent. Fracking is a viable way to achieve that goal. I also agree that in the short term, it will financially benefit the region. Where I am skeptical is that history has shown us when a industry uses up the available resources or it no longer economically viable, the site is usually abandoned. I am not a big fan of the Antis. This is one of the factors that contribute to their cause. I have not read any long term plan to address that problem. I am not talking about the long term possible leaching of frack fluids into ground water. The studies on both sides give compelling arguments. It is most likely somewhere in the middle on what the long term effects are going to be. So does anyone know what the plan is when the all the gas is extracted? What is the long term plan for monitoring and capping the wells? Who is responsible for removing legacy infrastructure? The Catskills are going to be webbed with gas pipe. Is there a plan for the removal of it when the gas is gone?

One of my concerns is when all the profits are made. It is all going to be walked away from. The Federal government is going to be on the hook to remediate it. We have enough sites in this country were the tax payers are left with the burden of cleaning up someone else mess. We do not need another one. If there is no long term plan and funds in place to remove legacy infrastructure. It is inevitable that the tax payers will be the ones floating the bill. If the long term economic negative impact is greater then the positive for the short term , is it a good idea?

Every thing I read is about the short term.
So does anyone know whet the long term plan is or if there is any?

You weren't directing that question at me, were you?

I am with the liberal elites on the fracking issue.

Pretty much anything Alec Baldwin believes is good enough for the Beetle.
 
Enjoying the debate...Mob great post....I am not getting involved, but I have a question for FF...It is a personal question, which I am sure he would prefer not to answer....I wouldn't if any of you boobs asked me...........

FF, where are you positioned in the demographic.....I was going to list a few options, but there are so many answers to the question. You live in the Catskills, and apparently have a large amount of property......I mean Alpacas need their space.....and the amount of shit I have seen, you must have quite a few.....so....did you grow up in NY on the "Nirvana" ranch, are you a transplant..so on and so forth......:)(homo erotic smiley)
 
You weren't directing that question at me, were you?

I am with the liberal elites on the fracking issue.

Pretty much anything Alec Baldwin believes is good enough for the Beetle.

Alec Baldwin called and said he doesn't want you on his side.
 
Enjoying the debate...Mob great post....I am not getting involved, but I have a question for FF...It is a personal question, which I am sure he would prefer not to answer....I wouldn't if any of you boobs asked me...........

FF, where are you positioned in the demographic.....I was going to list a few options, but there are so many answers to the question. You live in the Catskills, and apparently have a large amount of property......I mean Alpacas need their space.....and the amount of shit I have seen, you must have quite a few.....so....did you grow up in NY on the "Nirvana" ranch, are you a transplant..so on and so forth......:)(homo erotic smiley)

I'm not shy.

If I didn't post any personal info, what would the guys who DO hide it, rag on me about?

I'm NOT in the Catskills... I'm actually in the upper Susquehanna drainage. My area is generally considered the "foothills" of the Catskills. I do have 140 acres (and NO, no plans for any teepees). The alpacas use only six acres of the property, the rest being a balance of forest, over grown pastures, old apple orchards and hay fields. I've lived here over 30 years, having moved here when I was 12. I'm 46.

I am still on the fence on Fracking. We all can agree that The US must become energy independent. Fracking is a viable way to achieve that goal. I also agree that in the short term, it will financially benefit the region. Where I am skeptical is that history has shown us when a industry uses up the available resources or it no longer economically viable, the site is usually abandoned. I am not a big fan of the Antis. This is one of the factors that contribute to their cause. I have not read any long term plan to address that problem. I am not talking about the long term possible leaching of frack fluids into ground water. The studies on both sides give compelling arguments. It is most likely somewhere in the middle on what the long term effects are going to be. So does anyone know what the plan is when the all the gas is extracted? What is the long term plan for monitoring and capping the wells? Who is responsible for removing legacy infrastructure? The Catskills are going to be webbed with gas pipe. Is there a plan for the removal of it when the gas is gone?

One of my concerns is when all the profits are made. It is all going to be walked away from. The Federal government is going to be on the hook to remediate it. We have enough sites in this country were the tax payers are left with the burden of cleaning up someone else mess. We do not need another one. If there is no long term plan and funds in place to remove legacy infrastructure. It is inevitable that the tax payers will be the ones floating the bill. If the long term economic negative impact is greater then the positive for the short term , is it a good idea?

Every thing I read is about the short term.
So does anyone know whet the long term plan is or if there is any?
Thoughtful questions.

The drilling companies are legally obligated to cap any unproductive or abandoned well. I believe they CANNOT transfer this responsibility. The state has extensive requirements as to how this is to be done. The wells in the Marcellus and Utica formations are expected to be productive for 20 -30 years. That said, there is an initial period of HIGH productivity followed by years of low productivity. We'll see in the future how economical/efficient it is in the future to RE-frac, old well sites, I guess.

As far as the gathering lines(very small) and transmission lines being dug up, I do not know. It seems as it there would be no reason to, but the gathering lines would be easily removed. I can look into it and/or ask around. What would your concern be, for the removal of those?
 
As far as the gathering lines(very small) and transmission lines being dug up, I do not know. It seems as it there would be no reason to, but the gathering lines would be easily removed. I can look into it and/or ask around. What would your concern be, for the removal of those?

The biggest knock I've heard from some in the "environmental community" regarding the pipeline infrastructure is forest fragmentation. But it also creates a more diverse habitat, so the jury is out. Pros = edge habitat which benefits certain game and non-game species. Cons = invasive plants often take over these rights of way and their linear directions benefit predators like coyotes and fox. There is no one size fits all.
 
The biggest knock I've heard from some in the "environmental community" regarding the pipeline infrastructure is forest fragmentation. But it also creates a more diverse habitat, so the jury is out. Pros = edge habitat which benefits certain game and non-game species. Cons = invasive plants often take over these rights of way and their linear directions benefit predators like coyotes and fox. There is no one size fits all.

But after 20-30 years, wouldn't digging them up just "refragment" whatever has re-grown there?

After 20-30 years, it's probably time to log it anyway...:)
 
I think the thought is that during their use, the rights of way are constantly mowed on some cycle every few years and remain low growth areas. Your state knows fairly well the importance of diversified forest habitat whereas NJ does not. We have overreacted to too much logging in the late 1800s and early 1900s by more or less halting all forestry work on public lands for the past 100+ years and now our forests are all mature and consist more or less of single-aged stands. Hence we have largely seen the disappearance of ruffed grouse, golden winged warblers and many other species in need of early successional or mixed-aged forest. But I digress from the topic at hand. "Healthy forests" is a highly controversial topic here in the Garden State, unfortunately. I have been involved on many levels in fighting that battle as well and have tried to lead by example, having won the 2012 NJ State Stewardship Forest award for forestry work in Sparta on a 117 acre property I manage for a friend.
 
I think the thought is that during their use, the rights of way are constantly mowed on some cycle every few years and remain low growth areas. Your state knows fairly well the importance of diversified forest habitat whereas NJ does not. We have overreacted to too much logging in the late 1800s and early 1900s by more or less halting all forestry work on public lands for the past 100+ years and now our forests are all mature and consist more or less of single-aged stands. Hence we have largely seen the disappearance of ruffed grouse, golden winged warblers and many other species in need of early successional or mixed-aged forest. But I digress from the topic at hand. "Healthy forests" is a highly controversial topic here in the Garden State, unfortunately. I have been involved on many levels in fighting that battle as well and have tried to lead by example, having won the 2012 NJ State Stewardship Forest award for forestry work in Sparta on a 117 acre property I manage for a friend.

Hey quit with all the gratuitous self promotion will ya:)
 
Back
Top