Some proponents of hydrofracking recently asserted the concerns about potential health and environmental risks from the process are overblown ("Prosperity in fracking, group told," May 31).
A Syracuse University hydrologist labeled as "silly" the fears that injecting chemicals a mile deep to yield natural gas might result in environmental damage. We may need the natural gas. It may be our "patriotic duty" to develop New York's energy resources, although it has been said the claim of patriotism is the last bastion of a scoundrel. Yet, if the fear of environmental harm is baseless or remote, wouldn't insurance be the answer?
The state, the energy companies and the property owners each have insurable interests to be protected. If the risk is so remote, the cost of insurance should be low and insurance carriers should be interested in assuming it and pocketing the premiums. The drilling industry should obtain insurance for the benefit of the state and the property owners to cover any loss if hydrofracking results in the remote possibility of damage or injury.
Ira Rubtchinsky
Albany