Back in April, anti-drilling Chicken Littles gleefully cackled and clucked about a massive “blowout” at a Pennsylvania natural-gas well and speculated that “thousands of gallons of frack fluid” were poisoning water wells and contaminating a tributary of the Susquehanna River, which flows into Chesapeake Bay. The Maryland attorney general threatened to sue the drilling company, with New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, chiming in.

Well, there must be plenty of rejoicing over saved salamanders now that a report has found “no environmental impact” from the Luther Township, PA, gas-well malfunction, which accidentally released well fluids.

The 179-page report, which was prepared by SAIC, a firm that specializes in working with governmental agencies, contains extensive water-sampling and other data collected in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the US Environmental Protection Agency. It shows no lasting effect on the environment as a result of a surface release of well fluids from Chesapeake Energy’s “Atgas” well site.

Chesapeake funded the study, which was conducted according to DEP protocols and accepted by the agency and presents the large set of data and technical tables. Based on the information gathered during the first two weeks after the incident, the review has produced several important conclusions. Most important: The discharge of well fluid from the event caused only minimal environmental impact. The impacts that did occur were localized, of short duration and confined to surface waters surrounding the site. There was no harm to a nearby unnamed tributary or its watershed and the Towanda Creek, and there was no effect noted about nearby or regional water wells.

This accident was among the most serious that can happen during the completion of an onshore shale-gas well. Yet nobody was injured, the public was never in danger, and there was no lasting impact on the environment, as the analysis shows.

New York’s DEC referred to the incident in its revised Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement and has recommended procedures to ensure public safety, while concluding that fracking can be done safely in most areas of the state.

But don’t expect the anti-fossil-fuel crowd to let scientific evidence get in its way. After all, this is the group that ignited public fear through the film “Gasland,” with its now infamous scene of a Colorado homeowner lighting his faucet on fire and claiming gas drilling was the culprit.

Never mind that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission investigated and found no indications of oil- or gas-related impacts to the featured water well.

Dissatisfaction with state-level regulation is common among critics of drilling, who want to see more federal EPA regulation.

Even EPA chief Lisa Jackson, however, testifying this year before a US House Oversight Committee, acknowledged that the environmental risk of hydraulic fracturing was practically nonexistent.

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing,” she said.

The safety of hydraulic fracturing is well-documented, with zero confirmed cases of groundwater contamination in 1 million applications over 60 years.

And as the new report shows, that record remains intact — despite the supposed big blowout in Luther.

Karen Bulich Moreau, a lawyer, is president of the Foundation for Land and Liberty (landandlibertyfoundation.org).