Two Dimock, Pa., families who declined a Marcellus Shale gas driller's offer in 2012 to settle their claims of water contamination were awarded $4.24 million Thursday by a federal jury.
The verdict in U.S. District Court in Scranton was a blow to Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., which had maintained that its drilling was not responsible for the elevated level of methane in the families' water wells.
The eight-member jury found that Cabot's drilling was negligent and created a nuisance for the families of Scott Ely and Monica Marta-Ely and Ray and Victoria Hubert. It awarded the Elys $2.75 million and the Huberts $1.49 million.
In 2009, more than 40 Dimock residents sued Cabot, claiming that the Houston gas producer's rush to drill the Marcellus Shale had polluted their wells.
All but the Elys and Huberts settled in 2012 after tests showed wells contained elevated levels of methane, but none of the chemicals associated with gas drilling.
Read more at Philly.com
Interview of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the Water Pollution Case
Cabot Oil & Gas company was found by a federal jury to be responsible
for contaminating two couples’ wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania.
Listen to Susan Arbetter interview Leslie Lewis and Elisabeth Radow, the co-counsels for the plaintiffs, about the case at the Capitol Pressroom online (advance the tape slider to 22:10 minutes to begin).
Showing posts with label Marcellus shale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marcellus shale. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Friday, June 13, 2014
Fracking Waste: A Radioactive Legacy for New York?
New York Landfills Import Hazardous Fracking Waste -- TAKE ACTION to Protect Our Environment and Health
By David Kowalski .
Marcellus Shale contains radioactive materials, including uranium and its decay products, radium and radon. Normally, the radioactive material is safely buried deep underground. However, shale gas drilling and fracking bring radioactivity in solids and liquid wastewater to the surface, posing a risk to the environment and public health if not properly managed.
Radium and radon can cause cancer if ingested or inhaled. Radium causes leukemia and bone cancer. Radon, a gaseous decay product of radium, is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.
In 2009, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) found radium levels in Marcellus Shale wastewater that are thousands of times greater than that allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency, and up to 267 times the limit for safe discharge into the environment.
Exemption from a key federal regulation allows gas industry solid and liquid waste to pass as “non-hazardous.” However, it is becoming more widely appreciated that the waste can contain radioactive materials, in which case it should be regulated as "hazardous" waste and be managed accordingly.
Drilling and fracking waste in the form of sludge from Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale has triggered radiation alarms at municipal landfills. The sludge contains flowback fluids, frack sand and other fluids. Sludge must contain at least 20% solids according to the DEC, implying that it could contain as much as 80% flowback fluid and other fluids containing soluble radioactive material.Liquid leachate from landfills is sent to wastewater treatment plants unequipped to monitor or remove radioactive materials, threatening drinking water sources.
Waste from drilling and fracking in Pennsylvania has been imported by 6 New York landfills (see Map at bottom of page), including one in Niagara Falls that is not permitted to receive radioactive waste.
In West Virginia, tons of waste from Marcellus natural gas wells are going to municipal landfills, and radioactivity is leaching into surface water.
In the first four months of 2014, nine loads of Pennsylvania shale gas drilling waste were rejected by local landfills because of higher-than-normal radioactivity. Some of this radioactive drilling waste was shipped from Pennsylvania to West Virginia landfills that are not required to monitor radioactivity.
The gas industry has not identified methods to safely dispose the hazardous, radioactive waste and is shipping it to municipal landfills. It would be costly for industry to properly dispose the waste at a facility licensed to handle radioactive waste, but this is exactly what must be done to protect the environment and public health.
The industry is also failing to cleanup the hazardous, radioactive material in fracking wastewater. A peer-reviewed scientific paper reported radium levels of 200 times background in Pennsylvania’s Blacklick Creek sediments downstream of a specialized fracking wastewater treatment plant. A large portion of the radioactivity in the fracking wastewater appeared to have been removed before discharge into the waterway, but it is not clear where that radioactive material was disposed.
Avner Vengosh, the Duke University researcher who led the scientific study, said that "once you have a release of fracking fluid into the environment, you end up with a radioactive legacy." Contamination by radium, which has a half-life of 1602 years, will persist in the environment for many thousands of years.
Radioactive materials are present in a variety of gas-bearing formations, not just the Marcellus. Radioactivity can be present in the wastewater not only after high-volume fracking, but also following low-volume fracking, which is currently permitted in New York.
The DEC permits spreading fracking waste called 'brine' (salty wastewater) obtained from low-volume fracking wells and gas storage facilities on roads for de-icing, dust control and road stabilization as well as on land for dust control. Spreading applications of fracking brine have been approved for use in portions of at least 23 municipalities in 7 western New York counties: Erie, Niagara, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, Genessee, Wyoming, and Seneca. Also, the New York State Department of Transportation Region 6 received approval to spread brine from natural gas storage on State roads in portions of Steuben, Allegany, Chemung, Schuyler, and Yates Counties.
Spreading of any fracking wastewater on roads or land should not be permitted without first testing for radioactive materials. If radium and radon are present, aerosols and dust containing radium could be inhaled along with radon gas. Radium in liquid runoff that makes its way into drinking water and fish could be ingested.
Radium and radon in waste from shale gas drilling and fracking pose a serious threat to the environment and public health. Cancers induced by ingestion or inhalation of these radioactive materials can take years to develop.
Regulation of radioactive waste in gas drilling is just as lax now as it was shown to be in investigative reports of 2011. The public should demand that the New York State Legislature pass laws to protect our water, land, air and health from the dire consequences of long-lived radioactive contamination.
NY State Senator Tkaczyk sponsored a common-sense bill to ban transportation of fracking waste from Pennsylvania and elsewhere into New York and ban disposal. However, the bill was defeated in the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee in a straight party-line vote (7 Nays by Republicans to 6 Ayes by Democrats).
A key bill sponsored by Senator Avella (S674), and the 'same as' bill sponsored by Assemblyman Sweeney (A1046), would close the loophole that allows fracking waste to be designated as "non-hazardous," despite the fact that it can be hazardous in ways described above. Fracking waste needs to be monitored. If it contains radioactive or toxic materials, it should be regulated as "hazardous" waste and be stored, transported, and disposed in ways that protect the environment and health. As stated in the bill, "If not treated properly, hazardous waste can, among other concerns, lead to contaminated air, drinking water, soil, and food."
TAKE ACTION: Contact your NY State Senator (Click Here) and Assembly Member (Click Here) and ask them to co-sponsor the bills (S674 and A1046) to protect our environment and health.
Public input is more important than ever given heavy campaign contributions to state legislators from the natural gas industry.
In the absence of New York State laws, the public has little choice but to call for municipal bans on fracking waste in order to protect our environment and health.
An abbreviated version of this article was published in The Buffalo News on May 29, 2014.
 |
| Sources of Pennsylvania drilling/fracking waste disposed at 6 New York landfills Credits: Karen Edelstein, NYS Coordinator for FracTracker Alliance |
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Public Supports County Ban of Fracking and Drilling Waste
By David Kowalski .
The Erie County Legislature is examining a proposed law to ban fracking on county-owned land, and to prohibit treating, disposal and road spreading of fracking and drilling wastes, which contain toxic and radioactive materials.
About 75 people packed the Erie County Legislature Chambers for the final public hearing on the
proposed legislation.
Many of those in attendance signed up to speak and all who spoke were opposed to fracking and its waste.
Erie County legislators said that throughout all of the meetings they've had about banning fracking on county land, no one has ever showed up to speak in favor of the fracking industry.
A box of petitions with 3,845 signatures of Erie County residents who support the proposed legislation was presented by Rita Yelda, organizer for New Yorkers Against Fracking and WNY Drilling Defense.
The Erie County Legislature will vote on the proposal on December 12th. Legislators Betty Jean Grant and Timothy Hogues cosponsored the legislation and said that they have five of the six votes needed for
it to pass.
"Nearly 15 counties across New York have stepped up to protect their residents against the dangers posed by fracking and fracking waste," Grant said. "Now it's Erie County's turn to take a stand and say that we will not allow fracking on our county land and we will now allow drilling waste to be stored or disposed of on county land."
Grant, however, noted that a ban would alleviate concerns over health issues related to fracking.
"This protects us from being exposed to the hundreds of dangerous chemicals used in the fracking process and from being exposed to the radioactive fracking waste," she said.
Below is a brief video (provided by WGRZ) that gives an overview of the proceedings:
The Erie County Legislature is examining a proposed law to ban fracking on county-owned land, and to prohibit treating, disposal and road spreading of fracking and drilling wastes, which contain toxic and radioactive materials.
About 75 people packed the Erie County Legislature Chambers for the final public hearing on the
 |
| Photos / WNY Drilling Defense |
Many of those in attendance signed up to speak and all who spoke were opposed to fracking and its waste.
Erie County legislators said that throughout all of the meetings they've had about banning fracking on county land, no one has ever showed up to speak in favor of the fracking industry.
A box of petitions with 3,845 signatures of Erie County residents who support the proposed legislation was presented by Rita Yelda, organizer for New Yorkers Against Fracking and WNY Drilling Defense.
The Erie County Legislature will vote on the proposal on December 12th. Legislators Betty Jean Grant and Timothy Hogues cosponsored the legislation and said that they have five of the six votes needed for
 |
| County Legislators Betty Jean Grant and Timothy Hogues |
"Nearly 15 counties across New York have stepped up to protect their residents against the dangers posed by fracking and fracking waste," Grant said. "Now it's Erie County's turn to take a stand and say that we will not allow fracking on our county land and we will now allow drilling waste to be stored or disposed of on county land."
Grant, however, noted that a ban would alleviate concerns over health issues related to fracking.
"This protects us from being exposed to the hundreds of dangerous chemicals used in the fracking process and from being exposed to the radioactive fracking waste," she said.
Below is a brief video (provided by WGRZ) that gives an overview of the proceedings:
Monday, November 18, 2013
Energy Debate: Shale vs. Renewable
On Tuesday, November 19, from 12 noon to 1 PM on Buffalo's WUFO-AM 1080
radio, host Jim Anderson will interview Chris Faulkner, CEO of Breitling Oil and Gas.
The privately-held Dallas Texas based company extracts oil and gas from North Dakota's Bakken Shale, Texas' Eagle Ford Shale, the Marcellus Shale, and several other shale plays.
Accompanying Jim Anderson will be:
Listeners with questions/comments can call: 716-837-1112
Folks outside WUFO's range can listen to the debate Online at:http://streema.com/radios/WUFO
radio, host Jim Anderson will interview Chris Faulkner, CEO of Breitling Oil and Gas.
The privately-held Dallas Texas based company extracts oil and gas from North Dakota's Bakken Shale, Texas' Eagle Ford Shale, the Marcellus Shale, and several other shale plays.
Accompanying Jim Anderson will be:
- Lynda Schneekoth, Chair, Sierra Club-Niagara Group
- Robert Ciesielski, Chair, Sierra Club-Niagara Group's Energy Committee
- Rita Yelda, Organizer, Food and Water Watch
- Charley Bowman, Chair, Renewable Energy Task Force of the WNY Peace Center.
Listeners with questions/comments can call: 716-837-1112
Folks outside WUFO's range can listen to the debate Online at:http://streema.com/radios/WUFO
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Slide Show: Shale Gas Potential in New York
The slide show was produced and narrated by Jerry Acton, a Systems Engineer & Systems Architect (retired) at IBM and Lockheed. Acton describes an analytical procedure he developed that uses shale gas production data from Pennsylvania (PA) together with the depth and thickness of the Marcellus Shale along the PA-NY border to forecast shale gas production in New York and its economic impact.
A written report based on Acton's findings is HERE.
Friday, November 1, 2013
New York Lacks Economically Recoverable Shale Gas
 |
| Black diamonds represent uneconomic drilling (see text) -- Jerry Acton. |
New York Shale Play Gets Major Downgrade
By Peter Mantius
By Peter Mantius
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — The real reason New York State has not allowed high-volume hydrofracking for natural gas in its Marcellus shale is that there is almost no gas that can be economically extracted, according to four retired professionals turned fracking analysts.
Their argument contradicts the gas industry’s narrative – widely accepted as fact by many landowners, investors, politicians and state regulators – that shale gas is a potential economic “game-changer” for poor, rural upstate New York.
For the past four years, two governors have repeatedly extended the state’s de facto moratorium on fracking while they tinkered with the rules. Since last fall, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said he is waiting for the results of a vaguely defined health study, frustrating pro-gas groups with his apparent lack of urgency.
But the four analysts now argue that it’s geology – not health – that best explains Cuomo’s foot-dragging. In the governor’s cost-benefit analysis, they say, meager potential economic gains from drilling are not worth the environmental and political risk.
“The vast majority of the New York Marcellus shale is too thin (less than 150 feet thick) and too shallow (less than 4,500 feet) to yield economically recoverable natural gas,” said Jerry Acton, a retired systems engineer for IBM and Lockheed Martin who based his conclusions on drilling production results from neighboring Pennsylvania, where fracking is allowed.
Acton crunched four years of publicly available data supplied to regulators by Pennsylvania drillers. His analysis covered all 1,539 active natural gas wells drilled into the Marcellus shale in six counties that border New York. Acton found that median production results [Figure: Median IP chart, colored bars] for specific towns and counties [colored circles on map] correlate closely with the depth [white lines] and thickness [black lines & numbers] of the shale layer drilled. The deeper and thicker, the better.
That finding points to trouble for drilling prospects in New York, Acton said, because its Marcellus layer is relatively shallow and thin. While a cluster of Pennsylvania gas wells only 40 miles southwest of Binghamton have been highly successful, they tap a Marcellus layer that is much thicker and deeper than any in New York. As Pennsylvania drillers moved west of that sweet spot into thinner, shallower sections with geology similar to New York’s, gas production levels plummeted.
Their argument contradicts the gas industry’s narrative – widely accepted as fact by many landowners, investors, politicians and state regulators – that shale gas is a potential economic “game-changer” for poor, rural upstate New York.
For the past four years, two governors have repeatedly extended the state’s de facto moratorium on fracking while they tinkered with the rules. Since last fall, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said he is waiting for the results of a vaguely defined health study, frustrating pro-gas groups with his apparent lack of urgency.
But the four analysts now argue that it’s geology – not health – that best explains Cuomo’s foot-dragging. In the governor’s cost-benefit analysis, they say, meager potential economic gains from drilling are not worth the environmental and political risk.
“The vast majority of the New York Marcellus shale is too thin (less than 150 feet thick) and too shallow (less than 4,500 feet) to yield economically recoverable natural gas,” said Jerry Acton, a retired systems engineer for IBM and Lockheed Martin who based his conclusions on drilling production results from neighboring Pennsylvania, where fracking is allowed.
Acton crunched four years of publicly available data supplied to regulators by Pennsylvania drillers. His analysis covered all 1,539 active natural gas wells drilled into the Marcellus shale in six counties that border New York. Acton found that median production results [Figure: Median IP chart, colored bars] for specific towns and counties [colored circles on map] correlate closely with the depth [white lines] and thickness [black lines & numbers] of the shale layer drilled. The deeper and thicker, the better.
That finding points to trouble for drilling prospects in New York, Acton said, because its Marcellus layer is relatively shallow and thin. While a cluster of Pennsylvania gas wells only 40 miles southwest of Binghamton have been highly successful, they tap a Marcellus layer that is much thicker and deeper than any in New York. As Pennsylvania drillers moved west of that sweet spot into thinner, shallower sections with geology similar to New York’s, gas production levels plummeted.
Read more at DC Bureau.
See also this economics report: Hyped Benefits of Fracked Gas Already Fading
By Deborah Rogers at EcoWatch
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Shale Gas -- Revolution or Bubble?
Pennsylvania fracking boom goes bust
By Will Bunch, Daily News Staff Writer
It was just a couple of years ago that fracking was booming in upstate Pennsylvania's Bradford County, and Janet Geiger, a retired hospital worker living on a 10-acre spread near the New York border, could count on getting a $300 to $400 check every month from the gas giant Chesapeake Energy Corp., which was drilling under her land.
But both the gas and the checks - with the financially ailing Chesapeake now claiming big deductions - dwindled until finally, in March, a check never showed up. "I thought the mail had gotten lost," said Geiger, 74, but after a week she finally reached someone with the Oklahoma gas driller who explained "they didn't have a buyer [for the gas] that month."
But Geiger said that she'd already seen the signs of a slowdown, that rural streets once clogged with the massive trucks of the drilling firms were mostly empty now, while new motels that had been hastily thrown up or expanded to accommodate a flood of out-of-state workers had only a couple of cars in the parking lots.
Read more at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
US shale gas project 'biggest regret' for outgoing Shell boss
Outgoing Shell chief executive Peter Voser says in an interview with the Financial Times his biggest regret during his time at the company is the failure of the company’s huge bet on US shale gas.
The Financial Times says Shell has invested at least $24bn in so-called unconventional oil and gas in North America. But the investment has yet to pay off and in August Shell said it would carry out a ‘strategic review’ of its US shale activities.
‘Unconventionals did not exactly play out as planned,’ Voser is quoted as saying.
He also admitted exploration results in US shale beds had been disappointing. ‘We expected higher flow rates and therefore more scalability for a company like Shell,’ he said.
Read more at Dutch News.
Shale Bubble
We’re being told that – thanks to technological advances like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – the US is undergoing an energy revolution, leading us in a few short years to become once again the world’s biggest oil producer and an exporter of natural gas. According to the Oil & Gas Industry and their proponents, “fracking” will provide the US with energy security, low energy prices for the foreseeable future, more than a million jobs, and economic growth.
Pointing to record low natural gas prices and increased production, policymakers and the media on both sides of the political aisle, as well as investors and utilities, have bought the hype and are shifting their plans and proposals with the expectation that the shale revolution is here to stay.
The Reality is that the so-called shale revolution is nothing more than a bubble, driven by record levels of drilling, speculative lease & flip practices on the part of shale energy companies, fee-driven promotion by the same investment banks that fomented the housing bubble, and by unsustainably low natural gas prices. Geological and economic constraints – not to mention the very serious environmental and health impacts of drilling – mean that shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) are far from the solution to our energy woes.
See the full report at ShaleBubble.org
Outgoing Shell chief executive Peter Voser says in an interview with the Financial Times his biggest regret during his time at the company is the failure of the company’s huge bet on US shale gas.
The FT says Shell has invested at least $24bn in so-called unconventional oil and gas in North America. But the investment has yet to pay off and in August Shell said it would carry out a ‘strategic review’ of its US shale activities.
‘Unconventionals did not exactly play out as planned,’ Voser is quoted as saying.
He also admitted exploration results in US shale beds had been disappointing. ‘We expected higher flow rates and therefore more scalability for a company like Shell,’ he said.
- See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/10/us_shale_gas_project_biggest_r.php#sthash.CNn5l8qf.6bLkEKok.dpuf
Outgoing Shell chief executive Peter Voser says in an interview with the Financial Times his biggest regret during his time at the company is the failure of the company’s huge bet on US shale gas.
The FT says Shell has invested at least $24bn in so-called unconventional oil and gas in North America. But the investment has yet to pay off and in August Shell said it would carry out a ‘strategic review’ of its US shale activities.
‘Unconventionals did not exactly play out as planned,’ Voser is quoted as saying.
He also admitted exploration results in US shale beds had been disappointing. ‘We expected higher flow rates and therefore more scalability for a company like Shell,’ he said.
- See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/10/us_shale_gas_project_biggest_r.php#sthash.CNn5l8qf.6bLkEKok.dpuf
By Will Bunch, Daily News Staff Writer
It was just a couple of years ago that fracking was booming in upstate Pennsylvania's Bradford County, and Janet Geiger, a retired hospital worker living on a 10-acre spread near the New York border, could count on getting a $300 to $400 check every month from the gas giant Chesapeake Energy Corp., which was drilling under her land.
But both the gas and the checks - with the financially ailing Chesapeake now claiming big deductions - dwindled until finally, in March, a check never showed up. "I thought the mail had gotten lost," said Geiger, 74, but after a week she finally reached someone with the Oklahoma gas driller who explained "they didn't have a buyer [for the gas] that month."
But Geiger said that she'd already seen the signs of a slowdown, that rural streets once clogged with the massive trucks of the drilling firms were mostly empty now, while new motels that had been hastily thrown up or expanded to accommodate a flood of out-of-state workers had only a couple of cars in the parking lots.
Read more at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
US shale gas project 'biggest regret' for outgoing Shell boss
Outgoing Shell chief executive Peter Voser says in an interview with the Financial Times his biggest regret during his time at the company is the failure of the company’s huge bet on US shale gas.
The Financial Times says Shell has invested at least $24bn in so-called unconventional oil and gas in North America. But the investment has yet to pay off and in August Shell said it would carry out a ‘strategic review’ of its US shale activities.
‘Unconventionals did not exactly play out as planned,’ Voser is quoted as saying.
He also admitted exploration results in US shale beds had been disappointing. ‘We expected higher flow rates and therefore more scalability for a company like Shell,’ he said.
Read more at Dutch News.
Shale Bubble
We’re being told that – thanks to technological advances like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – the US is undergoing an energy revolution, leading us in a few short years to become once again the world’s biggest oil producer and an exporter of natural gas. According to the Oil & Gas Industry and their proponents, “fracking” will provide the US with energy security, low energy prices for the foreseeable future, more than a million jobs, and economic growth.
Pointing to record low natural gas prices and increased production, policymakers and the media on both sides of the political aisle, as well as investors and utilities, have bought the hype and are shifting their plans and proposals with the expectation that the shale revolution is here to stay.
The Reality is that the so-called shale revolution is nothing more than a bubble, driven by record levels of drilling, speculative lease & flip practices on the part of shale energy companies, fee-driven promotion by the same investment banks that fomented the housing bubble, and by unsustainably low natural gas prices. Geological and economic constraints – not to mention the very serious environmental and health impacts of drilling – mean that shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) are far from the solution to our energy woes.
See the full report at ShaleBubble.org
US shale gas project 'biggest regret' for outgoing Shell boss
Monday 07 October 2013Outgoing Shell chief executive Peter Voser says in an interview with the Financial Times his biggest regret during his time at the company is the failure of the company’s huge bet on US shale gas.
The FT says Shell has invested at least $24bn in so-called unconventional oil and gas in North America. But the investment has yet to pay off and in August Shell said it would carry out a ‘strategic review’ of its US shale activities.
‘Unconventionals did not exactly play out as planned,’ Voser is quoted as saying.
He also admitted exploration results in US shale beds had been disappointing. ‘We expected higher flow rates and therefore more scalability for a company like Shell,’ he said.
- See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/10/us_shale_gas_project_biggest_r.php#sthash.CNn5l8qf.6bLkEKok.dpuf
US shale gas project 'biggest regret' for outgoing Shell boss
Monday 07 October 2013Outgoing Shell chief executive Peter Voser says in an interview with the Financial Times his biggest regret during his time at the company is the failure of the company’s huge bet on US shale gas.
The FT says Shell has invested at least $24bn in so-called unconventional oil and gas in North America. But the investment has yet to pay off and in August Shell said it would carry out a ‘strategic review’ of its US shale activities.
‘Unconventionals did not exactly play out as planned,’ Voser is quoted as saying.
He also admitted exploration results in US shale beds had been disappointing. ‘We expected higher flow rates and therefore more scalability for a company like Shell,’ he said.
- See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/10/us_shale_gas_project_biggest_r.php#sthash.CNn5l8qf.6bLkEKok.dpuf
Friday, October 18, 2013
FORUM: Shale Gas Potential in NY State [Update: 10.26]
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Exerting Local Authority over Shale Gas Development
UB Geography Colloquium Series presents:
Susan Christopherson .
Professor, Dept. of City and Regional Planning,
Cornell University
A Vote of ‘No Confidence’?
Why Local Governments Take Action in Response to Shale Gas Development
Friday, October 4, 2013, 3:15p.m.
WILKESON 145H (inside GIAL Computing Lab), UB North Campus, Amherst [Map]
Why has a local response to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) shale gas development emerged? To understand why many New York communities have moved to exercise local authority or “home rule” over natural gas development, we examine how they came to understand (1) the risks attendant to HVHF, and (2) their strategic and regulatory options. An answer to these questions looks at the concerns that have framed the public discussion, and at how key local actors evaluated industry and state government willingness or capacity to address those concerns.
BIO: Susan Christopherson is an economic geographer whose research and teaching focus on economic development, urban labor markets, and location patterns in service industries, particularly media industries. Her research includes both international and U.S.-policy-oriented projects. Her international research includes studies in Canada, Mexico, China, Germany, and Jordan as well as multi-country studies. In the past three years she has completed studies on advanced manufacturing in New York’s Southern Tier, the photonics industry in Rochester, the role of universities and colleges in revitalizing the upstate New York economy, and production trends affecting media industries in New York City. She has written more than 50 articles and 25 policy reports on topics in economic geography and economic development. Her current projects include studies of phoenix industries in old industrial regions and a comprehensive economic impact analysis of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale in New York and Pennsylvania. Christopherson received her Ph.D. from the University of California-Berkeley.
Light refreshments will be served.
For more info on the Colloquium Series, contact Marion Werner<wernerm@buffalo.edu>.
THIS EVENT Co-SPONSORED by the GEOGRAPHY GRADUATE STUDENT ASSOCIATION (GGSA).
Susan Christopherson .
Professor, Dept. of City and Regional Planning,
Cornell University A Vote of ‘No Confidence’?
Why Local Governments Take Action in Response to Shale Gas Development
Friday, October 4, 2013, 3:15p.m.
WILKESON 145H (inside GIAL Computing Lab), UB North Campus, Amherst [Map]
Why has a local response to high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) shale gas development emerged? To understand why many New York communities have moved to exercise local authority or “home rule” over natural gas development, we examine how they came to understand (1) the risks attendant to HVHF, and (2) their strategic and regulatory options. An answer to these questions looks at the concerns that have framed the public discussion, and at how key local actors evaluated industry and state government willingness or capacity to address those concerns.
BIO: Susan Christopherson is an economic geographer whose research and teaching focus on economic development, urban labor markets, and location patterns in service industries, particularly media industries. Her research includes both international and U.S.-policy-oriented projects. Her international research includes studies in Canada, Mexico, China, Germany, and Jordan as well as multi-country studies. In the past three years she has completed studies on advanced manufacturing in New York’s Southern Tier, the photonics industry in Rochester, the role of universities and colleges in revitalizing the upstate New York economy, and production trends affecting media industries in New York City. She has written more than 50 articles and 25 policy reports on topics in economic geography and economic development. Her current projects include studies of phoenix industries in old industrial regions and a comprehensive economic impact analysis of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale in New York and Pennsylvania. Christopherson received her Ph.D. from the University of California-Berkeley.
Light refreshments will be served.
For more info on the Colloquium Series, contact Marion Werner
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
FRACKING: What's in Your Water?
Drilling wastes from the Marcellus Shale contain radioactive materials,
including Radium and Radon. The NY Dept. of Environmental
Conservation permits 5 upstate NY landfills to accept
out-of-state Marcellus drilling wastes, even though none of the
landfills has a license to handle Radioactive materials. One landfill is in Angelica, NY and another is in the city of Niagara Falls. Landfill water leachate is sent to water treatment plants that are not equipped to remove Radioactive materials, posing a threat to public health.
Ingestion of Radium in water can cause leukemia and bone cancer. Inhalation of Radon gas is the primary cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.
Handling, monitoring, transportation and disposal of radioactive waste is much more costly to the gas drilling industry than dealing with waste that is not identified as radioactive.
Efforts by NY Senate Democrats to prohibit imports of hazardous Marcellus drilling wastes into New York have been blocked by Senate Republicans.
Transportation and disposal in New York of radioactive drilling waste from Pennsylvania and other states should be prohibited to protect public health.
Read about the above and additional threats to our water in the excellent report by Peter Mantius entitled New York Imports Pennsylvania’s Radioactive Fracking Waste Despite Falsified Water Tests.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Fracking Forum – Impacts on Environment, Health and Society
Join panelists, Rita Yelda, Sarah Buckley, David Kowalski,
and Robert Cieselski, who will present talks and
answer questions about diverse issues surrounding shale gas extraction and high volume hydrofracking.
Sarah Buckley – Fracking Basics (the process of fracking, from wellpad to pipeline)
David Kowalski – Environmental and Health Issues (an analysis of industry-made arguments vs. other studies and evidence)
Robert Cieselski – Leasing and Legal Issues (signing considerations, Compulsory Integration, landowner rights, flipping, impacts on mortgages, insurance) and Renewable Alternatives to Shale Gas
Rita Yelda – Fracking in New York State (what has occurred the last four years and where we are at now)
For speaker bio's and links to articles about fracking, click here.
- WHEN: March 21, 2013, 7:00pm-9:00pm
- WHERE: Prendergast Library, 509 Cherry St., Jamestown [Map]
Sarah Buckley – Fracking Basics (the process of fracking, from wellpad to pipeline)
David Kowalski – Environmental and Health Issues (an analysis of industry-made arguments vs. other studies and evidence)
Robert Cieselski – Leasing and Legal Issues (signing considerations, Compulsory Integration, landowner rights, flipping, impacts on mortgages, insurance) and Renewable Alternatives to Shale Gas
Rita Yelda – Fracking in New York State (what has occurred the last four years and where we are at now)
For speaker bio's and links to articles about fracking, click here.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
NEW SOLUTIONS: Concerns Related to Shale Gas Extraction
The journal New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy has just released a special issue. It covers concerns related to shale gas extraction with respect to scientific, economic, social, environmental and health policy.
The issue opens with an Editorial entitled "An Energy Policy that Provides Clean and Green Power" by Craig Slatin and Charles Levenstein. They write:
The Editorial concludes with a call for the need of a national energy policy that addresses climate change and protects human health and welfare:
This special issue of New Solutions was organized by guest editors Robert Oswald, a Cornell professor, and Michelle Bamberger, a practicing veternarian. Many will recognize these individuals as the authors of a 2012 report entitled “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health." Oswald and Bamberger also wrote the introduction for the special issue.
Eleven articles in the issue cover scientific, economic, social, environmental and health policy. Authors include experts, such as Jannette Barth, Wilma Subra and Ronald Bishop, who have testified on aspects of shale gas extraction before the New York State legislature. Also, Anthony Ingraffea, Cornell professor of civil and environmental engineering, is interviewed in one of the articles.
The entire issue spans 221 pages and the PDF is available here.
New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy seeks to deliver "authoritative responses to perplexing problems, with a worker’s voice, an activist’s commitment, a scientist’s approach, and a policy-maker’s experience." Journal articles are "written for both the academic and educated lay audience." Its the Journal intention "to affect the public health policy discussion and shake up the policy debate." Articles are peer reviewed using a process described here.
The issue opens with an Editorial entitled "An Energy Policy that Provides Clean and Green Power" by Craig Slatin and Charles Levenstein. They write:
Now shale gas extraction conducted through the technological process commonly referred to as “fracking” is touted by the oil and gas industry as the next great energy boon. They tell us that gas will be so plentiful that it will answer all of our energy-related problems. Best yet, it will end the unemployment crisis that lingers past the Great Recession, leading to millions of jobs over the next several decades. Its promoters claim that we can have energy independence and a fuel that burns cleaner than coal—while they spread denial that the threat of catastrophic climate change is real or has much to do with human activity.One claim of industry propaganda is backed by a reference to a publication from an independent source. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reported that the Marcellus Shale deposit “contains about 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas," a figure which is 80 percent less than that supplied to the U.S. Energy Information Agency by industry consultants.
Let’s not be deceived: shale gas extraction will neither fulfill the prophesies nor be useful in the transition to just, democratic, and ecologically sustainable economies across the globe. It is business as usual. It is owned and operated by industries with more than a century’s legacy of greed, corruption, war provocation, pollution, illness, injury and death, environmental degradation, and a steady stream of propaganda and lobbying to limit its regulation by governments.
The Editorial concludes with a call for the need of a national energy policy that addresses climate change and protects human health and welfare:
Whatever short-term assistance the American economy gains from the continued use of fossil fuels, the highest priority must be placed on establishing a national energy policy, coordinated with an international set of energy policies, that aims for immediate measures to avert catastrophic climate change and establish a transition toward producing and delivering clean, green, and sufficient energy as part of the foundation for sustainable development. Attention to the health and welfare of workers and communities affected by these changes must be an essential priority of this new energy policy.
This special issue of New Solutions was organized by guest editors Robert Oswald, a Cornell professor, and Michelle Bamberger, a practicing veternarian. Many will recognize these individuals as the authors of a 2012 report entitled “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health." Oswald and Bamberger also wrote the introduction for the special issue.
Eleven articles in the issue cover scientific, economic, social, environmental and health policy. Authors include experts, such as Jannette Barth, Wilma Subra and Ronald Bishop, who have testified on aspects of shale gas extraction before the New York State legislature. Also, Anthony Ingraffea, Cornell professor of civil and environmental engineering, is interviewed in one of the articles.
The entire issue spans 221 pages and the PDF is available here.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Coalition Urges SUNY Trustees to Close UB Shale Institute
- Make public all documents related to founding, funding, and governance of the Shale Institute
- Formally recall the Institute’s first publication
- Close the Shale Institute
Among their criticisms of the Shale Institute:
- The Institute’s founding lecture series was underwritten and tainted by secret oil and gas company money, and it’s present and future funding remains mysterious.
- The Shale Institute’s directors have conflicts of interest between their academic work and their extensive consulting work with oil and gas companies.
- The Institute offers corporate donors an improper governance role and privileged access.
- The Institute’s initial publication was and continues to be marred by false claims of peer review, undisclosed corporate ties of the authors, an unscholarly pro-fracking agenda, and major factual errors, never acknowledged or corrected.
“It is time for UB administrators remember that they are employees of the citizens of New York, not PR flacks for potential corporate donors with no genuine interest in education and scholarship,” added Holstun.
In April 2012, the University at Buffalo formed the Shale Resources and Society Institute. The Shale Institute came under fire in May, when it rushed out a pro-hydrofracking report without benefit of peer review. University of Buffalo professors have questioned the independence of the Institute, a review by the Public Accountability Initiative revealed fundamental errors in the report, and news accounts detailed undisclosed ties of its authors to the oil and gas industry. On 12 September, the SUNY Board of Trustees directed the University at Buffalo Administration to report on the Shale Institute. On 27 September, UB President Satish K. Tripathi delivered his report to the Trustees.
UB Administration's claims that no concerns were raised by "the relevant scientific community" about the report or the data used in developing the report’s conclusion were addressed in a letter to the editor of the university's newspaper by David Kowalski, Professor Emeritus in the Cellular & Molecular Biology Program, Roswell Park Graduate Division of UB, and member of UB CLEAR.
In the letter, Kowalski indicated that objectivity of UB Shale Institute report was compromised in favor of the gas industry and existing state regulations. He stated that the report should have been peer reviewed through an academic journal. "Scientists rely on the rigorous and critical peer-review process to ensure research integrity," he said. "The authors should have been held to the same high standards of peer review as the UB faculty."
About UB CLEAR - Coalition for Leading Ethically in Academic Research:
UB CLEAR is a coalition of University at Buffalo faculty, students, alums, and other community members who have been working together since May to bring transparency to the Shale Institute. Today, 29 October, they formally responded to the UB administration in a comprehensive and thoroughly-documented report sent to the SUNY Trustees: “UB CLEAR Response to the 27 September Report by UB President Satish K. Tripathi regarding UB’s Shale Resources and Society Institute.” They charge that the UB administration report is evasive and non-responsive to the Trustees’ request, providing yet another example of pro-fracking propaganda in academic guise.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Public Forum: Leasing Land for Shale Gas Hydrofracking
SPEAKERS: Joseph Heath, Esq. and Michael Bosetti
WHEN: Monday, November 26, 6:00 PM
WHERE: Little Valley Memorial Library, 110 Rock City St., Little Valley, NY
Considering signing a gas lease?
Concerned about hydrofracking?
Want to learn more about your current gas lease?
Interested in terminating your gas lease?
Sometimes gas companies make drilling in a community sound benign and risk-free, but unfortunately, that is not always the case. New gas leases can be vastly different from our grandpa’s gas lease, and even old leases signed years ago could permit dangerous shale drilling techniques. New drilling techniques in to deep Marcellus and Utica shale layers involve toxic chemical injection into the land under homes, woods, farms, and water wells. As can be seen in Pennsylvania, this has made gas leasing very risky, creating the potential for air, water, and land pollution, and transformation of peaceful residential and agricultural areas in to industrial zones.
This Gas Lease Public Forum is free and opened to all, and will feature presentations from Joseph Heath, Esq. and Michael Bosetti. Joseph Heath is a long-time environmental attorney and general counsel for the Onondaga Nation who has taught communities all over New York about terminating gas leases and managing the questionable ways gas companies seek to extend old leases. Michael Bosetti will share his account of going against the gas company and successfully fighting a pre-existing lease on his property. Join us for this educational program on the pitfalls of gas leases and the process of lease termination!
Sponsored by: Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, WNY Drilling Defense, and Food & Water Watch.
For more information, contact Rita at 716-507-2077 or ryelda@fwwatch.org
WHEN: Monday, November 26, 6:00 PM
WHERE: Little Valley Memorial Library, 110 Rock City St., Little Valley, NY
Considering signing a gas lease?
Concerned about hydrofracking?
Want to learn more about your current gas lease?
Interested in terminating your gas lease?
This Gas Lease Public Forum is free and opened to all, and will feature presentations from Joseph Heath, Esq. and Michael Bosetti. Joseph Heath is a long-time environmental attorney and general counsel for the Onondaga Nation who has taught communities all over New York about terminating gas leases and managing the questionable ways gas companies seek to extend old leases. Michael Bosetti will share his account of going against the gas company and successfully fighting a pre-existing lease on his property. Join us for this educational program on the pitfalls of gas leases and the process of lease termination!
Sponsored by: Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, WNY Drilling Defense, and Food & Water Watch.
For more information, contact Rita at 716-507-2077 or ryelda@fwwatch.org
Friday, August 24, 2012
Transparency Urged for UB Shale Institute
An open letter to the University at Buffalo administration from 83 UB
faculty and professional staff regarding the newly-created Shale Resources and Society
Institute. To read the letter published in the UB Reporter, click here.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
UB Shale Institute -- Getting to the Bottom of It
By David Kowalski ~
Shale gas and fracking have become sensitive topics at UB. SUNY signed a three-year, $22M contract to buy natural gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing beginning April 1, 2012. On April 5, a UB Shale Institute was announced to the public. Shale-gas industry ties and UB's new Shale Institute led to controversy, which only deepened after the Institute released its first study on May 15.
The Institute's study revealed a gas-industry bias and was found by the Public Accountabilty Initiative to be riddled with procedural flaws and errors of fact. All of the Institute's authors have ties to the gas industry, but they did not disclose the funding sources for their study. Lack of disclosure naturally raised concern about conflicts of interest. Also, the authors' initial claim that the study was peer reviewed was later retracted.
Subsequently, news reports in the New York Times and The Buffalo News only exacerbated concern about the effect of the industry-friendly institute on UB’s reputation for credible scholarship. The Institute’s director, John P. Martin, who does consulting and public relations work for the oil and gas industry, is a co-author on the study. Martin declined, through a UB spokesperson, reporters' requests for an interview.
The UB Shale Institute is not a physical entity -- it's a virtual institute. The study's lead author, Timothy Considine, lives in Wyoming, works at the University of Wyoming, and has a reputation as the academic "go-to-guy" for industry-friendly studies. Two other co-authors live in Wyoming and Pennsylvania. Director John P. Martin lives in Saratoga Springs, NY.
How did an industry-friendly Shale Institute come to exist at a publicly-funded university known for academic research and scholarly activities?
According to a May 25, 2012 statement by UB Dean E. Bruce Pitman, the College of Arts and Sciences formed the Institute in April 2012, with the goal of providing scientific research and analysis on all sides of the issues surrounding shale gas. Pitman acknowledged in a radio interview on June 7, that he gave the support to create the Institute, and that he appointed the Director and the Co-Director, and got the Institute started. He also said, "The origin of the Institute. It started with a series of seminars organized by the Geology Department in spring of --get my years right-- 2011."
So how did the seminar series start and who were the speakers?
On March 28, 2011, the UB Geology Dept announced a Public Lecture Series on the Marcellus Shale. Department chair Marcus Bursk Ph.D. said that "The series will inform attendees about how geologists explore for resources, how companies get rights to the resources, how gas resources are drilled, fracked, and distributed and what legal, environmental and regulatory issues are involved."
On March 29, 2011, it was announced that oil and gas industry experts will take part in "Marcellus Shale Lecture Series: Energy Resources and the Environment in Western New York," beginning March 31 at UB. Independent Oil and Gas Association (IOGA) of New York members were to lead five of the eight presentations, and the March 31 speaker would be Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute.
Six of the eight announced presentations were connected to the gas industry.
A speaker not listed among the industry experts was Langhorne Smith, also known as Taury Smith, the state geologist with the New York State Museum. Smith was under a state gag order from talking to reporters. A month before his UB talk, he told the Albany Times Union that the Marcellus natural gas was "a huge gift" and that the potential environmental hazards of hydraulic fracturing were often exaggerated, as reported in The Buffalo News. At his UB presentation, Smith downplayed claims that the ability to light tap water on fire was caused by gas drilling contamination.
The final presentation on May 19, 2011 was entitled "Energy and the Environment: Gas and the Green Earth," by John P. Martin, listed as former senior project manager for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. At the seminar, the audience learned that the title of his talk had changed to "Can we get to sustainable energy resource development in the 21st century?" Well, so much for the Environment and the Green Earth.
Martin talked rapidly, describing how all energy sources have risks. It seemed that he was providing cover for the known risks of drilling and fracking. He downplayed wind turbines, and showed a fallen tubine tower made of some flimsy material to illustrate one risk.
John P. Martin showed the same flaming faucet photo that Langhorne Smith displayed, and said the water contamination wasn't caused by gas drilling. About a month before his seminar, scientists at Duke University published peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). Martin, an economist, dismissed the scientific study and put down the journal of the esteemed National Academy.
At his UB seminar, Martin was introduced by Robert Jacobi, a UB Geologist who had a position as director of special projects in Norse Energy Corporation. Jacobi would later become the Co-director of the UB Shale Institute.
Dean Pitman consulted with Geology faculty and others at the university
In the June 7, 2012 interview cited earlier, Pitman said "That seminar series was very successful. There was interest in following up on this issue." He added, "In consultation with the Geology faculty and with others at the university, as dean I gave my support to create an Institute as an initiative of the College of Arts and Sciences. And that’s how it started."
Consultation must have occurred before February 6, 2012 when John P. Martin gave a talk in Jakarta, Indonesia and listed himself as Director of the Shale Resources and Society Institute, University at Buffalo, SUNY (also known as the UB Shale Institute). In his slide presentation (courtesy of Artvoice) he cited as "in review" the study of Considine et al. (2012), which would later become the UB Shale Institute's first study (released May 15).
Who is Dennis Holbrook and who consulted with him?
Shale gas and fracking have become sensitive topics at UB. SUNY signed a three-year, $22M contract to buy natural gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing beginning April 1, 2012. On April 5, a UB Shale Institute was announced to the public. Shale-gas industry ties and UB's new Shale Institute led to controversy, which only deepened after the Institute released its first study on May 15.
The Institute's study revealed a gas-industry bias and was found by the Public Accountabilty Initiative to be riddled with procedural flaws and errors of fact. All of the Institute's authors have ties to the gas industry, but they did not disclose the funding sources for their study. Lack of disclosure naturally raised concern about conflicts of interest. Also, the authors' initial claim that the study was peer reviewed was later retracted.
Subsequently, news reports in the New York Times and The Buffalo News only exacerbated concern about the effect of the industry-friendly institute on UB’s reputation for credible scholarship. The Institute’s director, John P. Martin, who does consulting and public relations work for the oil and gas industry, is a co-author on the study. Martin declined, through a UB spokesperson, reporters' requests for an interview.
The UB Shale Institute is not a physical entity -- it's a virtual institute. The study's lead author, Timothy Considine, lives in Wyoming, works at the University of Wyoming, and has a reputation as the academic "go-to-guy" for industry-friendly studies. Two other co-authors live in Wyoming and Pennsylvania. Director John P. Martin lives in Saratoga Springs, NY.
How did an industry-friendly Shale Institute come to exist at a publicly-funded university known for academic research and scholarly activities?
According to a May 25, 2012 statement by UB Dean E. Bruce Pitman, the College of Arts and Sciences formed the Institute in April 2012, with the goal of providing scientific research and analysis on all sides of the issues surrounding shale gas. Pitman acknowledged in a radio interview on June 7, that he gave the support to create the Institute, and that he appointed the Director and the Co-Director, and got the Institute started. He also said, "The origin of the Institute. It started with a series of seminars organized by the Geology Department in spring of --get my years right-- 2011."
So how did the seminar series start and who were the speakers?
On March 28, 2011, the UB Geology Dept announced a Public Lecture Series on the Marcellus Shale. Department chair Marcus Bursk Ph.D. said that "The series will inform attendees about how geologists explore for resources, how companies get rights to the resources, how gas resources are drilled, fracked, and distributed and what legal, environmental and regulatory issues are involved."
 |
| HEARTLESS - courtesy of IOGA. |
Six of the eight announced presentations were connected to the gas industry.
A speaker not listed among the industry experts was Langhorne Smith, also known as Taury Smith, the state geologist with the New York State Museum. Smith was under a state gag order from talking to reporters. A month before his UB talk, he told the Albany Times Union that the Marcellus natural gas was "a huge gift" and that the potential environmental hazards of hydraulic fracturing were often exaggerated, as reported in The Buffalo News. At his UB presentation, Smith downplayed claims that the ability to light tap water on fire was caused by gas drilling contamination.
The final presentation on May 19, 2011 was entitled "Energy and the Environment: Gas and the Green Earth," by John P. Martin, listed as former senior project manager for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. At the seminar, the audience learned that the title of his talk had changed to "Can we get to sustainable energy resource development in the 21st century?" Well, so much for the Environment and the Green Earth.
Martin talked rapidly, describing how all energy sources have risks. It seemed that he was providing cover for the known risks of drilling and fracking. He downplayed wind turbines, and showed a fallen tubine tower made of some flimsy material to illustrate one risk.
John P. Martin showed the same flaming faucet photo that Langhorne Smith displayed, and said the water contamination wasn't caused by gas drilling. About a month before his seminar, scientists at Duke University published peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). Martin, an economist, dismissed the scientific study and put down the journal of the esteemed National Academy.
At his UB seminar, Martin was introduced by Robert Jacobi, a UB Geologist who had a position as director of special projects in Norse Energy Corporation. Jacobi would later become the Co-director of the UB Shale Institute.
Dean Pitman consulted with Geology faculty and others at the university
In the June 7, 2012 interview cited earlier, Pitman said "That seminar series was very successful. There was interest in following up on this issue." He added, "In consultation with the Geology faculty and with others at the university, as dean I gave my support to create an Institute as an initiative of the College of Arts and Sciences. And that’s how it started."
Consultation must have occurred before February 6, 2012 when John P. Martin gave a talk in Jakarta, Indonesia and listed himself as Director of the Shale Resources and Society Institute, University at Buffalo, SUNY (also known as the UB Shale Institute). In his slide presentation (courtesy of Artvoice) he cited as "in review" the study of Considine et al. (2012), which would later become the UB Shale Institute's first study (released May 15).
Who is Dennis Holbrook and who consulted with him?
Monday, July 16, 2012
UB CLEAR: Coalition for Leading Ethically in Academic Research -- Please Endorse the Petition
Coalition seeks transparency on a new industry-affiliated Shale Institute at UB in order to preserve research integrity and protect the university's reputation.
Background: On April 5, 2012, the University at Buffalo administration announced the UB Shale Resources and Society Institute. On May 15, an official UB press release accompanied its first publication: “Environmental Impacts During Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies.”
The Institute’s first report is fatally compromised. It was announced as peer-reviewed when it wasn’t. Its authors failed to reveal in the report their financial connections to the gas industry. And the report itself is riddled with procedural flaws and errors of fact, as detailed in a report by the non-profit Public Accountabilty Initiative.
The ensuing controversy includes a widely-distributed Associated Press story, an article in the June 11th New York Times, and another in The Buffalo News on June 29. It has damaged UB’s hard-won reputation and credibility.
The Institute’s formation violates UB procedures for creating centers and institutes. Its funding sources and plans are obscure.
In response, a group of SUNY faculty, alums, students, and other citizens have established the UB Coalition for Leading Ethically in Academic Research (UB CLEAR).
UB CLEAR calls on the UB Administration to take the following initiatives to prevent further damage and regain public trust in the university:
- Time Out - Suspend all funding, publications, and other operations of the Institute.
- Be Clear - Reveal all documents bearing on the formation of the Institute, its staffing, its governance and oversight, and its funding. Explain how and why the Institute’s first report came to be described publicly as “peer reviewed” and associated with the University itself and not just its authors. Adopt a goal of genuine, active transparency, not just the minimum required by law.
- Investigate - Establish a genuinely independent body, outside UB and the oil and gas industry, to investigate the Institute’s formation and its relations to industry and other donors.
- Discuss - Hold a forum in which all interested UB and other community members can raise their concerns about the Institute, receive candid answers, and offer advice.
Please Endorse a Petition to support the UB CLEAR initiatives
UB CLEAR seeks endorsement of the above initiatives, not only by the local university community, but also by all people who expect integrity in academic research and are concerned about the university's reputation. Academic research, which may influence public policy, should be held to the highest standards of ethics and must not be beholden to outside special interests. New Yorkers deserve transparency from their State University at Buffalo.Please pass the Petition on to others. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Professor Jim Holstun at 884-0895 or jamesholstun@hotmail.com.
UPDATE: Next MEETING of UB CLEAR is TUESDAY, September 25, 6:30pm-8:30pm, at Burning Books, 420 Connecticut St, Buffalo [Map]
Come join the campaign. All are welcome to attend!
Thursday, June 28, 2012
UB CLEAR: Artvoice Article, Demands, Petition, Talks, Shale Institute Grades, and News Updates
UB Group Asks For Investigation of Shale Institute
by Buck Quigley, Artvoice
by Buck Quigley, Artvoice
A group of faculty, students, alumni, and other New York State citizens calling itself the UB Coalition for Leading Ethically in Academic Research
(UB CLEAR) is holding a press conference at noon, Thursday (6/28), at
the corner of Main and Bailey on the SUNY at Buffalo South Campus.
The coalition formed in response to the UB Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI)—the formation of which, they argue, “violates UB procedures for creating centers and institutes.”
Press Release and UB CLEAR's Four Demands: click here
Endorse the Petition: Meet UB CLEAR's Four Demands
Press Conference Speakers and Links to Talks
UB CLEAR speakers that appeared at the press conference were Leslie Nickerson, a doctoral candidate in UB’s English Department; Stephen Halpern, a professor of political science; David Kowalski, professor emeritus of cancer genetics at Roswell Park and of cellular and molecular biology at UB; Sarah Buckley, UB alumna and registered nurse; Adam Drury, another doctoral candidate in UB’s English Department.
Report Card
Student Name: Shill Institute c/o John P. Martin, Director
 |
| Click Image to Enlarge |
Click images to enlarge
UB staff, students urge probe of institute
Critics say school's reputation is in danger due to controversy surrounding Shale Resources and Society Institute
UPDATE: June 29, 2012 - Public Accountability Initiative Report
University at Buffalo rejects call for transparency at Shale Institute
The controversy surrounding the University at Buffalo’s shale institute continued to grow yesterday, with the university’s administration rebuffing a new coalition’s calls for transparency at the institute.
UPDATE: June 29, 2012 - New York Times Looks at UB Shale Institute (Again) -- by Buck Quigley, Artvoice
The State University of New York at Buffalo picks up another black eye from the New York Times today, thanks again to the school’s Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI). Click here to read the story by Mireya Navarro.
To read more at Artvoice, click here.
UPDATE: June 30, 2012 - Press Conference Videos
- First two speakers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)