191
Predictably, the industry also started looking at possible shale development across
the border in the southern tier counties of New York.
New York soon became the epicenter for disagreements over fracking. On the
one side were opponents who thought fracking would be an unacceptable risk to the
environment and should be banned. On the other side were proponents who considered shale gas development to be important for the depressed New York economy,
especially the rural areas upstate. The proponents had evidence that just such an
economic boost had happened in Pennsylvania without major environmental
impacts. Fracking opponents countered that any financial gains were not worth the
risks, and that environmental impacts might take decades to become apparent
(Campin 2016). The debates were intense and contentious, with vigorous disagreements over land use, landowner rights, the shared environment, water rights, and
many other issues. Much of the environmental opposition came from urbanites in
New York City, and was resented by proponents who were mostly rural landowners
upstate. Many positions became deeply entrenched, with almost no one changing
their minds about anything, and substantial hard feelings remain to this day.
One reason for the intense disagreement was the lack of data, caused by industry
refusing to cooperate with outside researchers. Government regulators were also
slow to respond, and their authority to force industry to allow access to sites and
data was limited. Without detailed studies, environmental monitoring, and a solid
understanding of the actual environmental risks, neither side had many facts to back
up their arguments. The supposed environmental threats from fracking were based
on anecdotes, arm-waving, and back-of-the-envelope calculations. These were dismissed by industry with claims that they had a good understanding of the fracking
process and none of these problems actually existed. People on both sides became
infuriated, and the attacks got personal. The degree of distrust between the two sides
was palpable.
Industry by and large refused to allow independent agencies access to their drill
sites to collect unbiased data that would help to ascertain the environmental risks
(Soeder 2015). Some companies supplied small amounts of data and released their
own environmental studies that were universally decried as “tainted” by the fracking opposition groups, who considered the information to be slanted and bogus.
This argument is not without merit – other industries have delivered self-serving
studies to bolster their case. The decades of obfuscation by the tobacco industry
over the health risks from smoking is one example that comes to mind. Another is
the denial by the pharmaceutical industry that excessive human use of drugs and
hormones has affected fish and other biota in creeks and rivers. Even sugar producers have paid for studies that blame obesity on the consumption of fat, not sugar.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation waded into the
middle of all this to carry out a detailed environmental impact study on the Marcellus
Shale. They produced a massive, 1500-page Supplemental Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (SGEIS) in 2009 that received thousands of public comments. It
was revised in response to those comments and published in 2011 (New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation 2011). The New York SGEIS concluded that no significant adverse impacts to air or water resources were likely to
10.1 Should Fracking Be Banned?
Predictably, the industry also started looking at possible shale development across
the border in the southern tier counties of New York.
New York soon became the epicenter for disagreements over fracking. On the
one side were opponents who thought fracking would be an unacceptable risk to the
environment and should be banned. On the other side were proponents who considered shale gas development to be important for the depressed New York economy,
especially the rural areas upstate. The proponents had evidence that just such an
economic boost had happened in Pennsylvania without major environmental
impacts. Fracking opponents countered that any financial gains were not worth the
risks, and that environmental impacts might take decades to become apparent
(Campin 2016). The debates were intense and contentious, with vigorous disagreements over land use, landowner rights, the shared environment, water rights, and
many other issues. Much of the environmental opposition came from urbanites in
New York City, and was resented by proponents who were mostly rural landowners
upstate. Many positions became deeply entrenched, with almost no one changing
their minds about anything, and substantial hard feelings remain to this day.
One reason for the intense disagreement was the lack of data, caused by industry
refusing to cooperate with outside researchers. Government regulators were also
slow to respond, and their authority to force industry to allow access to sites and
data was limited. Without detailed studies, environmental monitoring, and a solid
understanding of the actual environmental risks, neither side had many facts to back
up their arguments. The supposed environmental threats from fracking were based
on anecdotes, arm-waving, and back-of-the-envelope calculations. These were dismissed by industry with claims that they had a good understanding of the fracking
process and none of these problems actually existed. People on both sides became
infuriated, and the attacks got personal. The degree of distrust between the two sides
was palpable.
Industry by and large refused to allow independent agencies access to their drill
sites to collect unbiased data that would help to ascertain the environmental risks
(Soeder 2015). Some companies supplied small amounts of data and released their
own environmental studies that were universally decried as “tainted” by the fracking opposition groups, who considered the information to be slanted and bogus.
This argument is not without merit – other industries have delivered self-serving
studies to bolster their case. The decades of obfuscation by the tobacco industry
over the health risks from smoking is one example that comes to mind. Another is
the denial by the pharmaceutical industry that excessive human use of drugs and
hormones has affected fish and other biota in creeks and rivers. Even sugar producers have paid for studies that blame obesity on the consumption of fat, not sugar.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation waded into the
middle of all this to carry out a detailed environmental impact study on the Marcellus
Shale. They produced a massive, 1500-page Supplemental Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (SGEIS) in 2009 that received thousands of public comments. It
was revised in response to those comments and published in 2011 (New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation 2011). The New York SGEIS concluded that no significant adverse impacts to air or water resources were likely to
10.1 Should Fracking Be Banned?