Cornell Prof Admits He’s Anti-Drilling Advocate, Not Impartial
When someone says “a professor of hydraulic fracturing from Cornell University” is bad mouthing shale drilling, it certainly grabs your attention. Cornell is a storied institution and professors at Cornell face tough competition to teach there. We’ve written plenty about Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, the Cornell prof with a bachelors degree in aerospace engineering from Notre Dame and a Ph.D. in civil engineering from the University of Colorado at Boulder–and an “expert” in hydraulic fracturing. Ingraffea has a nice sideline business of bashing fracking whenever and wherever he can–and when he does so, it is with the full reputation and backing of Cornell University behind him. We still remember the first time we heard Ingraffea in person (see Cornell Hydraulic Fracturing Expert Headlines First Meeting of New York Residents Against Drilling (NYRAD) in Vestal, NY). Ingraffea spoke about everything at that meeting–except the science of fracking. And therein is the bait and switch that Ingraffea engages in. He trades on his reputation as a geologist and scientist, and on the reputation of Cornell–yet he never attacks the actual science of fracking. To do so would be intellectual and professional suicide. It is the other, tertiary issues Ingraffea attacks–like “boom and bust” cycles, and truck traffic, and theoretical damage to water aquifers. Recently Tony finally admitted, on the record, that he’s not an impartial scientist at all when it comes to fracking. Tony himself said he’s an advocate and that he engages in advocacy–not science…
Read More “Cornell Prof Admits He’s Anti-Drilling Advocate, Not Impartial”
New York State’s anti-drilling Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commissioner, Joe Martens, is doing his best to concoct a litigation-proof Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). The SGEIS is the document that will find too many “troubling” aspects of fracking to allow it in New York. Except there’s potentially a loophole coming in the SGEIS, if press reports can be believed. Fracking WILL be allowed IF it uses under 300,000 gallons of “liquid”–the liquid most likely being water. (A typical well takes 5-8 million gallons of water to frack.) The NY loophole of using up to 300,000 gallons of liquid leads pro-drillers like MDN to muse: Is there an alternative liquid, other than water, that can be used to frack a well economically at under 300K gallons? What if the substance is foam and not liquid–is foam exempt from the 300K gallon cap? Or how about this: Can a driller use 299,999 gallons of water to frack a well and get enough gas out of it to break even and wait until the idiot we have in office now (Gov. Andrew Cuomo) is gone and go back later and re-frack the same well once the 300K gallon restriction is lifted? Hey, it’s fun to speculate. We’re not trying to foster false hope, but we do wonder if there’s a loophole in the SGEIS that can be exploited so landowners and drillers (the good guys) can beat extremist environmentalists like Cuomo, Martens and Yoko Ono (the bad guys)…
A court case decided earlier this week by New York’s Court of Appeals (NY’s highest court), will, in our opinion, have a profoundly negative effect on oil and gas development in the state, forever. Or until another court case overturns it (which seems very unlikely). The case, as its core, is about the question of whether or not state action or inaction constitutes an extraordinary action, in essence an Act of God outside of the control of parties who sign a contract. Years ago landowners signed leases to allow oil and gas drilling, often for a few bucks and acre, long before Marcellus and fracking were common, household words. Then came delay after delay in New York–from the governor–and eventually a more or less semi-permanent ban on fracking. Energy companies argued that the leases they had signed could be extended until the day they are allowed to drill in the Marcellus because of “force majeure”–the concept that due to circumstances beyond our control we could not drill as we intended during the original term of the lease, usually five years. The NY Court of Appeals on Tuesday decided that the state preventing drilling does not qualify as force majeure after the original five-year period of a lease (full copy of the decision below). If the original lease was extended for some reason and then the driller was prevented from drilling during the extended time due to state laws preventing it, it’s not force majeure in the eyes of the “wise” justices in Albany…