Clear sky
Clear sky
26.6 °F
December 04, 2016
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search

A misleading picture

By Alice Zinnes
September 1, 2011

On August 24, the Penn State-sponsored Wayne County Task Force held a meeting in Honesdale on the “Economic and Community Impacts of Marcellus Shale.” Holding this event is commendable. Professor Timothy Kelsey gave a polished, and at first glance balanced, overview. He emphasized that fracking is a boom-and-bust industry, where early profits dribble to all but nothing, and recommended we plan now for a future with no gas income. He mentioned that though huge profits are earned by some, others would lose. He said many businesses would experience sales increases, but infrastructure, health and environmental cleanup costs could outweigh increases in tax revenues—and that towns may actually experience no tax revenue increases since most drilling labor is migrant. When pressed, he admitted that, because so many traditional jobs are lost, the net job growth might be negligible. He said local renters would no longer be able to find housing.

But through omission, the power of clever visual presentation, length of time spent on each issue, and even sheer misinformation, Kelsey nevertheless painted a rosy picture, and did not accurately represent to our community what we in the Upper Delaware River region should know.

1. The polished PowerPoint graphs and charts were based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Marcellus Shale reserve estimate of 410 trillion cubic feet of gas, suggesting we may have fracking here for at least 30 to 50 years. But the USGS has just released a reserve estimate 80% lower, of 84 trillion cubic feet, an estimate EIA accepts. Thus, investors and legislators must now consider closer to 10 years of Marcellus drilling, and thus short-term drilling profits will not last long.

2. Repeatedly, Timothy Kelsey insisted that the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Act precludes local townships from zoning where drilling may occur, when in fact the state Supreme Court, and more recently lower courts as well, have affirmed that though localities cannot determine how drilling is done, they can zone where it is done. After the presentation, Kelsey admitted he had not read any legal documents.

3. Actual environmental, health and infrastructure costs were not discussed at all. Kelsey said no studies have been completed that he knew of. However, in a discussion following the event, he admitted these external costs were high, and that since the net gain of jobs is about zero, these costs might make the overall gains of fracking negative.

God forbid

Where would we be if all the second home owners up and left the area. They are our lifeblood. Just ask them. Classic Quarter Acre Club mentality.

One has to admire the constant, if somewhat desperate,

efforts of this paper and its obstructionist minions to keep tossing stuff against the wall in hopes something will stick. The solution is simple. All obstructionists should stop using gas, oil, plastic, fertilizers, electricity, heating oil, propane, and many other items too numerous to mention. You folks are paying Exxon to frack, and your little whines and cries are far more subdued than your screaming need for this energy and the products it creates. Perhaps it is therapy and makes you fell better about yourself. Look at those gas and oil ads on the margin of this paper. Someone accepted money for them. Who are you really trying to convince...perhaps it's yourselves?