Peril in the shale
If Chesapeake Energy really wanted to fully inform the citizenry about exploration of the Fayetteville shale, it would add to its new faux news website and its paid mockumentary lineup this investigative effort by the new nonprofit Pro Publica, a public interest journalism foundation.
I make no allegations about the conduct of Chesapeake or any other producer in Arkansas. But I repeat that producers' assurances about the absence of environmental threat posed by the exploration and the give-me-the-money happiness of mineral and land owners are not sufficient protection against problems.
There's a big shale play with horizontal drilling underway in New York. The lead of the ProPublica reporting might encourage you to read more:
On May 29 New York state's top environmental officials assured state lawmakers that plans to drill for natural gas near the watershed that supplies New York City's drinking water posed little danger.
A survey of other states had found "not one instance of drinking water contamination" from the water-intensive, horizontal drilling that would take place across New York's southern tier, the officials told lawmakers in Albany.
Reassured, the legislature quickly approved a bill to speed up the permitting process for a huge influx of wells that could bring the state upwards of $1 billion in annual revenue. Gov. David Paterson has until Wednesday to decide whether he will sign the bill, and the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, or DEC, says drilling permits could be approved in as little as 12 weeks.
But a joint investigation by ProPublica and New York City public radio station WNYC found that this type of drilling has caused significant environmental harm in other states and could affect the watershed that supplies New York City's drinking water.



Comments
Its not just in Central Arkansas that Chesapeake Energy is airing their infomercials. There was a promo for one on KTBS-Shreveport (Yes, I get that station sometimes when the weather is right some mornings, but thats another topic altogether) titled "Hayesville Shale", and airtimes.
Chesapeake Energy is sure puking out much propaganda these long-hot summer days.
Posted by: Ms_Haley_1965
|
July 26, 2008 07:04 AM
Suggested theme song for Chesapeake Energy: I Shale Be Released
Slogan for folks who rely on well water around Chesapeake Energy operations: Shale Mary
Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
|
July 26, 2008 11:19 AM
"If you're going to err, err on the side of protecting the environment." --Mike Beebe while talking to the Governor's School.
First of all, let's not "err" at all. Secondly, can anyone name me one thing Beebe has done right for the "environment". Click my name for video of Beebe's statement to the Governor's school.
Posted by: Roderick A. Bryan
|
July 26, 2008 11:33 AM
Why does the energy company not review powering the power plant they want to build in Ar., with some of the natural gas from the wells they are supposedly drilling in NW Ar? Why even resort to coal at all? My electric costs have risen more than thirty percent since this time last year. That kind of tells me that the damned coal fired plants are not, in all actuallity, very efficient, nor are they economical. Thirty percent is one ^%(( of a rise in just one year! I paid $120+- for last month, last year, and my current billing is $160. That is right at one third, (33%), of an increase. Who in the #)^% authorised that much of an increase. Is not the government monitoring and supposedly controlling how much the costs can be raised? I'm on a fixed income, but my income sure didn't go up 33%.
Posted by: JNYJ
|
July 26, 2008 11:33 AM
JNYJ- I doubt your cost per kilowatt hour has gone up that much even if your overall bill for one month has gone from $120+ last year to $160 this year. I've kept records on our cost of electricity covering 1997 through 2008. Our cost of electricity during that 11 year period has increased only 6.2% total. Comparing all of 2007 to the first half of 2008 shows a 4.3% increase this year. Note- our electricity provider is Entergy, but you may have a different provider.
I suggest you look at both electric bills and see how many kilowatt hours you used. I suspect you will find you used many more KWH this year compared to last. Please report those numbers here so we will know if that is true or not.
Now, changing the subject to natural gas, that is a completely different story. From 1997 to 2008 the price of natural gas has increased a whopping 89.3%. It is likely still cheaper to use natural gas rather than electricity to power a hot water heater or clothes dryer, but the difference in cost is getting much narrower.
Anybody have a simple way to compare the cost of natural gas versus electric to power such household appliances? Please share.
Posted by: Sound Policy
|
July 26, 2008 12:04 PM
JNYJ , It's my understanding the new coal plant is strictly intended to supply the Texas wholesale electric market.
Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
|
July 26, 2008 12:27 PM
ANd I should note.. Texas is rejecting several proposed coal plants from being constructed within their boundaries.
Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
|
July 26, 2008 12:29 PM
>>Gov. David Paterson has until Wednesday to decide whether he will sign the bill, and the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, or DEC, says drilling permits could be approved in as little as 12 weeks.<<
When are these governors gonna wise up when presented with time-pressured bills. Just copy Bushco and use signing statement that says it will not go into effect until 2014.
Posted by: eLwood
|
July 26, 2008 03:41 PM
eL - I got the impression that Gov. Paterson signed off on this bill the other day.
Posted by: Goof
|
July 26, 2008 08:15 PM