Over the years we have learned that there are some columns which always generate more response from readers than others. Thus we are never surprised with what we hear when we do a column on the issue of natural gas. And last week’s column was no exception.
The majority of the people who talked with us about the column were positive. And we were not at all surprised by those who agreed with the column and were happy to see that the issue of natural gas is being re-evaluated by some. Others indicated that they still do not feel they know enough about the pros and cons of natural gas to really understand the issue which would tend to indicate to us that the issue has not been presented in a well rounded way.
And then there was the e-mail, on which we were blind copied, sent by Adrian Kuzminski to a number of organizations suggesting that “Some reasoned responses to the Coop Crier might be in order.” Since we firmly believe that open discussion of issues is valuable, we wrote back asking if we might use his e-mail in the column. To this, we received a second e-mail with specific responses to our column which, in the interest of fairness, we will share here.
The first point made was that “The problems with fracking/natural gas seem to be outpacing any improvements in technology.”, citing as an example an oil company in the Dakotas that is flaring off methane gas instead of capturing it. Plus “...our own DEC has just put forth woefully inadequate regulations for proposed Liquid Natural Gas facilities.”
The second point read “...The larger problem is resource depletion (the gas wells run dry quickly), air and water pollution, global warming, etc. etc., while the money I would say is wasted on a dead-end public policy is taken away from investment in renewables, etc.”