House Representative Tom Reed says that the state’s decision on high-volume hydraulic fracturing is “the wrong decision for New York State’s future.”
During a conference call this morning, Reed said that the decision is a missed opportunity for the state and that fracking could provide jobs and a boost for the Southern Tier’s depressed economy. The decision is political, he said, and driven byย Governor Andrew Cuomo’s presidential ambitions.ย
Reed’s remarks aren’t much different from those made by other fracking supporters in the wake of the Cuomo administration’s decision to prohibit fracking in New York. But Reed is seizing on a point that other critics haven’t given as much attention.
“You should compensate individuals for taking their property,” Reed said. He’s essentially saying that the property owners should be compensated for the money they could have made from fracking.ย
And Reed says that he wants to work with members of the state’s Congressional delegation, as well as state legislators, to look into legislation that could ultimately force those payments.ย
Pro- and anti-fracking activists have said that it’s entirely likely that some property owners may sue the state seeking compensation for the loss of a revenue-making opportunity from their properties.
This article appears in Dec 17-23, 2014.
So should the state compensate me for disallowing a swine farm in my residential neighborhood?
“You should compensate individuals for taking their property,” Reed said. Who is you, one wonders? What property was taken? Would NYS take ownership of the gas in exchange for compensation? How would the amount of compensation be determined? I doubt that Tom Reed has thought this through.
Property ownership is a myth. When someone can’t pay the taxes anymore, then they have to leave. The property is immovable, so no one can “take” it. The gas underneath, by law, must not be removed.
Compensation? For what?
Should non-property owners be compensated for the inability to lease any land for fracking?
Instead of Reed’s money wasting idea, let’s spread the wealth by helping everyone put solar panels on every roof.
Nothing has been “taken”; the methane is still there in the shale. Mineral rights owners can still drill into other formations, such as the Trenton Black River, or even into the Marcellus or Utica using vertical low volume fracking. With methane prices so low, it is probably not economical to do so, but , as Commissioner Martens pointed out, it’s highly questionable if high volume fracking is economical in NY state either. There just isn’t that much recoverable methane in the thinner, shallower shale layers of NY.
This is the voice of sheer desperation. Mr. Reed has argued loudly for state’s rights in this matter–until the state banned fracking. This to me rhymes with the logic of trade agreements like TPP that are now being negotiated in secret and would give corporations rights equal to sovereign nations, including the right to sue for potential lost profits caused by democratic laws, especially environmental laws. Corporations are very close to insisting that we owe them a living–and juicy profit margins. Mr. Reed’s posturing reduces that argument to absurdity. But just because they’re absurd doesn’t mean that these ideas aren’t powerful and in motion as we speak.
How about compensation for losing the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of your property, worries about health, water contamination, air pollution, truck convoys blocking roadways…um, let me count the ways #fracking will destroy the way of life for those of us who live in the southern tier. (Who lied to these landowners, telling them they will get rich from shale?) How are those losses calculated?