Is Fracking Good for Pennsylvania? MSC Destroys Anti-Fracking Screed
ANTI-DRILLING/FOSSIL FUEL | ECONOMIC IMPACT | HYDRAULIC FRACTURING | INDUSTRYWIDE ISSUES | JOBS | PENNSYLVANIA | STATEWIDE PA
Is Fracking Good for Pennsylvania? MSC Destroys Anti-Fracking Screed
ANTI-DRILLING/FOSSIL FUEL | ECONOMIC IMPACT | HYDRAULIC FRACTURING | INDUSTRYWIDE ISSUES | JOBS | PENNSYLVANIA | STATEWIDE PA
September 14, 2023
The nutters are out in full force, particularly in Pennsylvania, using fraudulent “studies” by the Ohio River Valley Insititute (ORVI) and (sadly) the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) to call for an end to the Marcellus industry in the great Keystone State. A recent “letter to the editor” appearing in the Sunbury (PA) Daily Item is a perfect example. On Sept. 3, the Daily Item ran an op-ed titled “Is fracking good for Pennsylvania,” concluding that it is not. It was written by a member of the Climate Reality Project, a far-left organization that irrationally hates fossil energy. The typical references were made to the fraudulent ORVI and Pitt studies. Ten days later, another op-ed appeared in the Daily Item, written by David Callahan from the Marcellus Shale Coalition, setting the record straight.
Frankly, Dave’s column destroys the earlier column. This is how we must respond to the inane rantings of the left. Hats off to Dave for a great response!
First up, the original column from the Climate Reality Project robot parroting all the usual leftist talking points, published Sept. 3:
Is fracking good for PA?
In 2019, Pennsylvania taxpayers spent $3.8 billion on subsidies to the oil and gas industry. These handouts have been going on for years and are still being doled out to the same extent today. I think there is a good argument to be made that this money could be better spent on jobs and infrastructure related to combatting the climate crisis by switching to renewable energy instead.
Our legislators in Harrisburg and businesspeople in the oil and gas industry will tell you that they have been doing a lot to fight the climate crisis and build our economy by converting coal-fired electricity plants to “clean” natural gas-fired plants, and by bringing more natural gas-supported industry to the state. If all their plans come to fruition, in addition to plastic nurdles, gas project developers will make “clean” hydrogen, “clean” diesel, fertilizers, and even bitcoin using natural gas. These developers say they will bring “jobs and prosperity” to PA. If you don’t know about the subsidies, the message is compelling. After all, Pennsylvania has been an energy leader for 150 years, and natural gas is the latest energy product. Shouldn’t we take advantage of it?
It’s becoming clear that the answer to this question is likely to be no. This is because the costs to our health and our communities are too high, and we are rapidly running out of time to act on the climate crisis.
Last week, the University of Pittsburgh and the Pennsylvania Department of Health announced the results of three studies that evaluated health risks associated with living near fracking operations in western Pennsylvania. One study found that children who live within a mile of natural gas fracking operations are five to seven times more likely to suffer from lymphoma than those who live farther than five miles away. This risk far exceeds that of the United States as a whole. The two other studies linked living near fracking operations to low birth weight for newborns and a four-to-five-fold increased risk of asthma attacks in children.
These studies add to a growing body of evidence that fracking operations are harmful to humans and that the risks are too high, even considering any economic prosperity. A group of concerned physicians who analyzed nearly 2,200 studies on the health effects of fracking since 2014 have concluded that there is “no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health directly or without imperiling climate stability upon which human health depends.”
Beyond health impacts, a number of studies have shown that natural gas is not even “clean.” In fact, if you track methane leaks from the well during gas production, the flaring of excess gas at the well, leaks in pipelines, and leaks after a well has been shut down and likely abandoned, natural gas has roughly the same carbon footprint as coal. Even if we add emerging (and super-expensive) carbon capture technology to natural gas-burning plants, experts say the cost-benefit analysis favors renewable energies such as wind and solar with energy storage technologies.
But what about prosperity? Aren’t we putting people out of work if we stop fracking? Of course, this is the most compelling argument for continued development of the natural gas industry in PA. People need jobs. However, studies from the Ohio River Valley Institute have looked at the effects of fracking operations on communities in southwestern and northeastern PA. Their analysis shows that very little of the money associated with these operations actually makes it into the local economy. Over time, fracking communities provide more to the gross domestic product than do non-fracking communities, however, they have lower incomes and fewer jobs, and lose their population base. The only population that enjoys prosperity is the gas industry.
Considering how much fracking is costing us in children’s lives and health, taxpayer dollars, and economic prosperity, continuing to support this industry just doesn’t add up for PA. We don’t have to give up being an energy leader, we just need to think outside the gas well. This means we need to stop fracking and start investing in our clean, green, renewable energy future as quickly as possible.
Sandy Field lives in Lewisburg and is the chair of the Climate Reality Project, Susquehanna Valley Chapter. Contact her for more information about climate action in this area or to schedule a presentation for your group at SusquehannaValleyCRP@gmail.com. (1)
Dave Callahan’s response, published Sept. 13:
Basic economics shows the costs of eliminating natural gas from Pennsylvania’s energy mix: Fewer jobs, less investment, exacerbated reliability risks, and higher energy prices — not to mention increased greenhouse gas emissions.
These realities were conveniently left out of a recent op-ed (Is fracking good for Pennsylvania?, Sept. 3), misleading readers into believing eliminating natural gas and relying solely on intermittent energy sources is the best path forward for the commonwealth.
That notion couldn’t be further from the truth. First, it is physically impossible to have “clean, green, renewable energy” without natural gas. The backbone of America’s electric power grid, natural gas’ flexibility and on-demand capabilities both enhances renewable capacity by picking up the slack when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
Second, advocating for total reliance on renewables fails to consider real cost implications for consumers as well as the reliance on foreign nations like China to obtain the refined rare earth minerals for manufacturing solar panels, batteries, and other technologies. These risks to energy security and increased costs are easily avoided by investing in domestic energy development that’s continuously improving — thanks to the free market at work.
The benefits of clean, domestic natural gas are shared and understood on both sides of the political aisle. “There will be no transition of our energy system without natural gas,” Democrat Willie Phillips, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stressed just this week.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the purported $3.8 billion in taxpayer “subsidies” that the self-proclaimed researchers at PennFuture fabricate. Basically, these anti-fossil fuel advocates conflate the term “subsidy” with actual tax benefits to consumers. For example, they claim that someone using heating fuel for their home is paying less than in other states because it’s not subject to a sales tax in PA, that tax benefit to the consumer is a subsidy to the oil and gas industry.
Similarly, more than one-third of the $3.8 billion number PennFuture fabricates is because the state does not impose a 6% sales tax on gasoline or diesel fuel. Yet Pennsylvania’s liquid fuels tax — which is the highest in the nation — is conveniently ignored in their calculations. Arguing that failing to impose higher taxes on Pennsylvania consumers is a “subsidy” for the oil and gas industry is an absurd proposition. When given these simple facts, readers are smart enough to know better.
These tired talking points have been discredited at length and make little sense, particularly when thrown around out of context.
Same goes for the conclusions drawn from Pitt’s health studies, which failed to use even the most basic field data and didn’t take air or water samples despite receiving millions in taxpayer dollars to do so. Clickbait headlines ignore the decades of peer-reviewed research confirming natural gas development is safe, well-regulated, and produced here better than anywhere else in the world.
Studies of Pennsylvania communities — which never triggered the same sensationalized headlines — from the Pennsylvania DEP, Yale, Duke, Penn State, and University of Cincinnati researchers, among many others, conclude no systemic, widespread air or water impacts are tied to natural gas.
The Yale researchers, for example, called their study of Pennsylvania and Ohio among the country’s largest sampling of water quality around unconventional natural gas development sites. What did they find? In their words: “[unconventional oil and gas]-related water contamination occurs rarely.”
Real data and on-the-ground experiences confirm we’re developing natural gas safely, responsibly, and in a way that’s consistent with protecting the environment, the health of our employees, and nearby communities — while being a boon to local workers and the economy.
So, is natural gas good for Pennsylvania? The facts say yes. You don’t need to be an accountant to recognize the costs of banning this abundant resource out of existence just don’t add up.
David Callahan is president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition (marcelluscoalition.org). (2)
(1) Sunbury (PA) The Daily Item (Sep 3, 2023) – Is fracking good for Pennsylvania
(2) Sunbury (PA) The Daily Item (Sep 13, 2023) – Banning natural gas doesn’t add up