Don Siegel Will Save Us All

Its nice to know that scientists are willing to go to bat for a cause that they believe in, but what is perplexing is how little scientists are willing to go through to really understand their position fully. When they don't think through every aspect of their position it can create a lot of damage when that position gets published in a newspaper for public consumption. In a recent article on Syracuse Post Standard, Donald Siegel, a professor at Syracuse University, made some very disturbing comments with respect to the issue of gas drilling in NY. I think that Dr. Siegel is not fully appreciating all of the issues involved. This was our exchange on that newspaper's comment section. You can see the original here:


Some Scientists Say Hydrofracking Benefits Outweigh Risks


Post By Dr Siegel:

I'm having some difficulty responding to individual posts (my responses seem to have not been placed next to the post I wanted to respond to!).

Ok. I fully understand that there are legal issues that need to taken care of with respect to hydrofracking. I hope to collaborate with a lawyer to clarify the legal issues. I fully support DEC monitoring of drilling and evaluation of backflow fluids. I fully recognize that when accidents happen, such as Dimmock, that the people who are affected need to get compensation and the wells sealed and so on.

But, as a scientist, I make my technical decisions on what will work and not work based on evidence, much as I do in my everyday life. If I get really sick, I go to my doctor, not take just herbal remedies. If my car breaks, I take it to a mechanic. And so on. My entire life, and I suspect the entire lives of even those who decry shale bed methane production are led by using evidence to guide them. Now, my doctor might be wrong and my mechanic a crook, but I think, based on evidence, that they are not, at least most of time.

I have just served on a panel of the National Academy of Science on coal bed methane and environmental effects of it. They hydrofrack and horizontally in this technology too. I saw only a few accidents, out of tens of thousands of successful wells. I saw little serious environmental harm, and drove the width of the Powder River Basin where most of the local controversy has been.

EPA came in and said it was an environmentally safe extraction method, and I fully anticipate that EPA will do the same for our shale bed methane. Despite the public fear of the backflow water from the drilling, has trivial amounts of water produced with the gas compared to the Wyoming coals.

But even so, I urge development of methods to reduce the salty backflow water that might have to be stored for a while in lined pits. Just last week I heard from the Department of Energy that onsite processing of the salty water is almost ready, with reduction of the amount of backflow water by 85%.

I rather think all this debate deals with a measure of regional environmental justice. That is, the Northeast has been the beneficiary of cheap energy without an iota of environmental cost (compared to that for others). But, this cheap and environmentally no-cost energy has been at the expense of massive environmental cost in the states just south of us, where the majority of streams have been acidified by strip mined coal, and table top mining now fills valleys and streams with rubble. Not over a small area, but regionally. Then, there is the Gillette strip mine in Wyoming from which we also get large amounts of New York Energy.

So I ask those who both reject the success of methane extraction elsewhere, and its logical success in New York, why they accept the continuing degradation of their neighboring states' environments to provide New York with its cheap energy?

Isn't there a measure of communal justice such that we New Yorkers might accept take a small environmental risk and temporary inconvenience to our "sightscapes" and "soundscapes", to help those places where environmental destruction by strip coal mining continues? Or, do some New York environmentalists only care about their own environment so much that they don't want even small change for the benefit of all?

I agree that society HAS to move to renewable energy and soon before climate crisis becomes so bad there is no way out. I actually sometimes lose sleep over this. We have to reduce our carbon emissions quickly, and natural gas burning compared to coal or oil cuts it by half. It's the least we should do.

But those who damn scientists need to know that these very scientists cannot magically make renewable resources to drive the energy economy as fast as they would like. Science is not magic.

And there are costs to every renewable people want to have. Solar? How about covering large swaths of deserts to get enough? Where will we strip mine to get the metals for the batteries? Where will be dump the spent heavy metal from the batteries? Distributed solar? How can we build an energy infrastructure fast enough to do it?

Wind? How about thousands of windmills mantling ridge and off shore Lake Ontario? Do you want to really see sightscape changes? Talk wind. And of course, doing wind farms do deplete bird and bat populations to some extent.

Nuclear? Forgetaboutitt. Except in Europe and China and India.

My point? There is no free lunch when it comes to energy. At least now. There are environmental costs, and meaningful ones, with every energy solution we have short of cutting back, conserving. This too would be a way but it won't happen unless the price of gas at the pump and our electric bills double or triple. If it did, our economy would tank because, unlike Europe (where gasoline prices are twice ours), American no longer has public transportation to fill the gap.

So, I ask, what doable solution do those against shale bed methane offer as a meaningful solution to cut greenhouse gases? As I said in my interview with the Post Standard, it's easy to say "No, No, No" to new energy development and foster fear and develop false analogies.

Speaking of which, the terrible oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico hardly constitutes a valid comparison to shale bed methane development. If a shale bed well fails, the environmental harm remains local. We know this from what we have seen throughout the country in coal and shale bed methane wells--local issues. A massive oil spill on the ocean to even the most casual observer could logically lead to a regional problem, which it has. But liquid oil flowing on water is not gas methane, and drawing that analogy to propagate fear seems wrong to me.


My response:

Hi Dr. Siegel, Sorry you are having problems responding to individual posts. Sometimes science doesn't work out as planned. There can be unforseen problems with technology-who knew?

Instead of lawyer collaborations, perhaps you might better serve the populace if you enlighten us all with your hydro-geology wisdom and use any further attempts at propaganda (oops..I meant editorials...sorry) to directly explain the actual science behind why you think the process of gas drilling in shale in NY is so safe. Notice I didn't say "fracking". I want you to consider the ENTIRE process of the drilling and not just appease our concerns that "fracking" is safe.
Fracking has become a catch-all term that gets bandied about as the real culprit of "fear mongering" when it is really the entire process of what is about to happen in NY that has people that are looking at the SCIENCE, or lack thereof, very concerned.
You might be able to convince someone that a single hydro-fracking job is safe, but you will have a more difficult time if you try to convince someone that numerous instances of high volume horizontal hydrofracturing in shale, with the intensity needed to sustain the gas industry investment in NY is in fact safe, or warranted, when all aspects of water use, frac fluid disposal, emissions, truck traffic, road damage, environmental accidents, etc. are factored into the equation.

This type of all encompassing scientific research was NOT done by the EPA when it looked at coalbed methane. That science, was just termed by EPA's Jackson as being merely a review, and not an assessment of the actual methodology that would be used in NY or the Marcellus region. A study of the science of gas drilling in the Marcellus, including all the direct and indirect impacts, has NOT yet been undertaken and therefore for you to claim that the science has been settled is a serious flaw in your argument, not withstanding the fact that there are many geological differences between coalbed methane and shale, that you should be well aware of, AND differences in technology that have come about since the EPA last looked at the issue.
Your analogy of the gas industry to the medical profession is interesting in that the last time I checked, Aubrey McClendon of Cheasapeake did not have to take the Hippocratic Oath of "first do no harm". I would like to point out that the gas industry typically does not work in that fashion, preferring to "frack now, pay later". So it is pretty insulting to my physician friends for you to make this comparison, and I hope you are not planning any major medical procedures any time soon, lest your doctors subscribe to gas industry mores and treat you with any unproven methods they have and then sit back and wait for the malpractice suit to come.
I have some more problems with some of what you have written here, but I need to check on some facts before I make any more commentary on your science.


Hi Again Dr. Siegel

Dr. Siegel,
I am very happy to hear that you "saw" only a "few" accidents, out of tens of thousands of successful wells while working on coalbed methane. Even the Texas railroad commission only "sees" a third of their wells every year so I am quite impressed that you took the time to do visual inspection of tens of thousands of wells.

It would be in the best interests of science, however, if we did not trust entirely your anecdotal visual inspection and seek to verify precisely how "few" a "few" turns out to be over a period of time, lets say 10 to 20 years, just to make certain. Wouldn't that be much more scientific?

Canadians have been doing coalbed methane development now for a few years, and their results have not been as rosy. They in fact decided in March of 2006, to make baseline testing of water wells mandatory before drilling occurs in coalbed methane. Alberta has undertaken a mapping program to make certain that all groundwater sources are mapped before drilling. Wouldn't you agree that the SAME type of regulations should apply in the US or at the very least, in NY, just to be on the safe side?

In Canada, after about 6000 wells were drilled, they started to see problems. Farmers near Strathmore were struggling with noise pollution, degraded landscapes and land use problems. 40 activist groups sprouted in order to force Canada to adopt national water standards and to begin collecting information on the drilling and its effects on groundwater. At the end of the day, it would appear that at least some Canadians do not share your opinion of the safety of coalbed methane development.

Your comment on water use during hydrofracturing needs clarification. Individual water applications and consumptive use rates vary widely in coal development, and you did not specify what application you were comparing to hydrofracturing. Was it coalbed methane drilling in Wyoming? Coal gasification in Wyoming? Coal hydrogenation-liquifaction? Or should we assume the term"Wyoming Coal" means all coal operations in Wyoming? Wouldn't that comparison be kind of unfair, given that much of the water used in many coal operations is brine water and NOT fresh water? Your assertion that high volume horizontal hydrofracturing in NY uses less water than "Wyoming Coal" might have to be re-worked, notwithstanding the fact that one might want to consider use over a period of years when wells are re-fracked, or compare water use as a function of how much energy is derived from the water used.

I am happy to hear that on site processing of brine water is "almost" ready. They say that a lot about cures for cancer too. Even with this technology, however, unless its MANDATORY, few drillers will use it, as the cost will probably be prohibitive initially. No on site water recycling procedures that I have read about deal with the radioactivity issues found in some areas; have you read something different? I would be surprised if that issue was solved by recycling.

You ask why someone would accept the continuing degradation of their neighboring states' environment to provide NY with its cheap energy. I would answer that I don't accept it.

If a state wishes to extract its resources and sell them to me at a fair price, then I owe them nothing in the way of "communal response". I have no say in their choice, other than if I object to their practices then I can choose to purchase from some other state. Unfortunately, gas is not a commodity where I have a lot of choice in what state I do business with. They don't label it on the bill as coming from PA or Colorado or Canada. So I am pretty certain your argument is not really practical. With any luck, NY could decide to come up with better ideas for energy rather than spreading around the environmental degradation evenly as you suggest. Two wrongs don't make a right. A "temporary inconvenience" to our "sightscapes and soundscapes" may be more than someone should bear when they have to listen to 85 decibel compressor stations for the next 30 years. That really doesn't sound temporary to me.

The reality is that gas drilling will forever change the landscape of NY, and this should not be done just to equalize some perceived environmental injustice picture that you have in your head. One might make the case that NY is more enlightened about environmental justice and therefore will choose to save the gas for future generations until the technology to get it out can be less invasive. Another case could be made that depriving coal workers in mining states of their livelihood before alternative employment for them is put in place is another form of injustice. I might also add that the present marketplace for gas is only being driven by profits for the gas industry and NOT by any concerns for the well being of the American citizen, or any environmental justice, I can assure you. Seek out information on Nigerian fossil fuel extraction and Shell if you don't believe me.


You are correct that we have to reduce our carbon emissions quickly, and it appears that natural gas compared to coal cuts emissions by half, UNLESS you factor in all the other indirect sources of carbon emissions from gas extraction; then it is actually much less than half, and if you add the byproducts of leaking pipelines and compressor stations you will see the picture is a lot less certain than you paint it. If you have the view that natural gas is some kind of "transition fuel" than you are making a Faustian bargain with our state and its environmental future.

If you are truly losing sleep over the emissions issue, than you should heed the suggestions of Dr. Ingraffea and advocate for a SLOW measured response to this gas rush, so that the state and the country does not fall into another fossil fuel trap that it can't get itself out of.

Economically, gas as a "transition fuel" makes no sense except for those that will profit from the transition directly, namely the gas industry and their shareholders. For everyone else, like the auto industry and the electric companies, a transition to gas means new infrastructure and increased costs, and banking on an uncertain commodity with wildly fluctuating prices and unforseen costs that the oil spill in the Gulf now proves can happen.

You may not like that comparison of the Gulf spill to fracking, but if you put 60, 000 wells in NY it will not be LOCAL damage we are talking about when enough of these wells have problems. Everyone will know someone with an issue about gas drilling, and we will ALL have to suffer the increase in methane emissions, as air pollution is NOT LOCAL.


The only "transition" fuel that benefits our country is one that makes fossil fuel obsolete, or close to it. That means higher fuel costs are indicated to truly represent the true costs of scarcity, and impact on our environment, be it gas, oil or nuclear. This true cost, this high cost, will foster a response in our economy so that the American ingenuity that sent us to the moon can come up with a RENEWABLE fuel (or fuels) that meets our needs, and/or a better technology to do more with what we have, with our present infrastructure. As Thomas Friedman posits, what America needs now is a GREEN revolution similar to our computer revolution--something that can bring back our economy and position our country as the leader in green energy. This will not be easy to do, but it can be done. It will only get done, however, if the marketplace is allowed to work, and people pay the true costs of using fuels that cost us all more in the long run. That means right now we need heavy regulations on the industries that pollute, mandatory best practices, and extraction taxes and bonds that raise costs for fuel extraction and prompt individuals to make better choices with their energy dollars, and slow down fossil fuel extraction until the "science" catches up.

There are no false analogies or fear in being against high volume horizontal hydrofracturing in NY. Just a measured response, considering ALL the risks and rewards, indicated that NOW is NOT the time to do this. We can do better, we should take the time to do better, and DEC and the Governor should not sell out the state at WAY below what its worth, just because that's what every other state is doing. Let PA make all the mistakes. We can revisit the question of WHEN, in a few years time after more of the DATA has come in. Until then, it is poor science, and poor policy to move forward. Drill when the commodity is scarce, when the landowners have a better idea of the risks and rewards, and when the technology has improved.


That position, would allow all of us, across the state, to sleep better at night.

Sphere: Related Content