OtegoNY.com

For a lot of people, the promise of “free money” doesn’t raise the red flags that it should. People want to believe in Santa Claus, and that they can win the lottery, even if they lose thousands of dollars buying lottery tickets year after year.

If someone offered those people all the thousands back that they had squandered, they’d take them in a minute (and probably throw them away again on more lottery tickets!)

The point is, that early on, people find all the reasons they can to convince themselves that something is good, even though they really know better.

After awhile, though, they see that they have made a huge mistake. It takes time. It takes experience with the thing. It takes maturity.

The huge problem is that after the mistake is made, there is no taking it back. Once our area is ruined, the bust begins, the housing values are in the toilet, the land is unusable for agriculture, the water is compromised, and the “free money” turns out to be a pittance and does not make up for the costs, we will be very sorry. So will all the people who thought “landowners coalitions” or the impotent regulatory agencies like the DEC would protect them.

Nobody is coming with a check to pay back all the money they lost in the lottery. The free money was and is a lie.
The “bonds” that companies put up to insure against tragedies are a drop in the bucket that will never cover the devastation that they create.

We can use our mature minds now to see the problems that the proposed drilling in the Marcellus shale will bring. The evidence is clear. We just have to look to see what those same promises have brought to people who have had the same process ruin their communities and rip them off.

Here’s an article someone sent me (as soon as I get the original site for this reference I will post the link to it). It has to do with the Barnett Shale, which is in Texas and is similar deposit the Marcellus Shale in NY:

Local Leaders’ Perceptions of Energy Development in the Barnett Shale

Brooklynn J. Andersonm Mississippi State University Extension Service

and Gene L. Theodori, Sam Houston State University
Southern Rural Sociology, 24(1), 2009, Pp. 113–129.
Read the Full Article Here

After itemizing the positive and negative consequences of energy development, informants in Johnson and Wise Counties were asked to give their overall impressions. Specifically, respondents were asked whether the benefits of energy development outweighed the costs.

In Johnson County, the county where the massive, large-scale development was just beginning to occur, respondents unanimously agreed that the benefits of production would outweigh the costs. In contrast, Wise County respondents unanimously reported that the costs outweighed the benefits.

These responses may reflect differences in site maturity between Johnson County, where the massive development has only recently begun, and Wise County, where citizens have been exposed to intense development efforts for over a decade.

While respondents from both counties acknowledged the benefits of energy development, the enthusiasm of the Wise County respondents may be overshadowed by the daily presence of, and exposure to, the associated costs in relation to health and safety, resource use, and quality of life. It also appeared that respondents in Wise County are well aware that their local resources are finite, as
expressed by one concerned citizen: “We need energy, but we need water, too. If  you had to choose, would you rather be cold or thirsty?”