What the Frack is the Deal with Natural Gas?
Steve Nemecek
Natural gas and its extraction has become a very complicated matter with regards to environmental protection and the safety of citizens. The demand for this resource has risen in the last few years and gas companies are investing heavily into the future of this energy source. My hope is that after reading this paper you will have a better understanding about this complicated issue and can continue to follow this current debate. I will lay out what type of extraction is used to tap into this source, and how it has become what it is today. The most recent debate of this issue has to do with potential of drilling in New York on the Marcellus Shale. But to understand where the issue stands today we must define all the terms associated with it and look at the federal and states protections against what environmentalists claim to be “a highly destructive process.” We need to understand this issue so we can prevent the degradation of our environment and protect our most valuable resource: water.
What if someone came to your door and told you that your land could have the potential to make you thousands of dollars. Even if you were a total skeptic to this possibility, you would none the less have to hear him out. The person would then proceed to tell you about the easy process of extracting natural gas from your land through a small drill. He would then explain that first you’d be paid $600 just to test for gas. Then you’d be paid a monthly leasing fee and the more gas they could pull out, the more money you would make. After they were done, they would take the drill down and you would never have known it was there. All of this seems so simple, especially at a time where the economy has taken a turn for the worse. Everything seems to be in place for you to get wealthy while keeping your land just the way it is.
This could be you, if you own land that sits on the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus Shale is a black shale formation extending deep underground from Ohio and West Virginia northeast into Pennsylvania and southern New York (DEC). “The area could contain between 168 trillion to 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas throughout its entire extent (DEC). To put this into context, New York State uses about 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year.” Geologists claim that they have known that there was natural gas in this area for a while, but recent advances in the extraction process are only now making the gas obtainable. If landowners cooperate, gas companies now know how to get more gas than they ever dreamed of. As our country, like other countries around the world, has started to make changes in its energy uses this question becomes paramount in our planet’s future. Natural gas for the time being has become the new answer to our energy problems. In regards to oil and coal, natural gas does not contain high amounts of carbon emissions. This helps energy companies to promote its use over other fossil fuels since high carbon emissions for oil and coal are associated with climate change. The demand for natural gas is rising and gas companies are trying harder than ever to extract as much as possible. The real question is, is natural gas the clean energy of the future?
The real problems exist in the exploration and extraction of this “clean energy source.” This process has been referred to as hydraulic fracturing. The drill installations alone are significant-size industrial parks. The drill pads take up several acres by themselves and they erect a tower which can spew huge flames. New roads are built to gain access to each site, as well as parking areas (France). Trees are removed and entire areas are cleared. The worst part is the large pits set up to collect the millions of gallons of contaminated water. After the gas is extracted, the drilling companies will leave, but not before the area has become a wasteland (France). Hydrofracking “consists of pumping a fluid and a propping material such as sand down the well under high pressure to create fractures in the gas-bearing rock. The propping material (usually referred to as a ‘proppant’) holds the fractures open allowing more gas to flow into the well than would naturally” (DEC). There is no blast or explosion created in this process, which has been practiced in New York since the 1950s. Water is the essential element in this process, and large volumes will be needed, since each well may use more than one million gallons of water (DEC).
In addition to using large volumes of water, this extraction process uses dangerous chemicals. Environmental health analyst Dr. Theo Colburn who is an opponent of drilling was able to obtain a list of fracking chemicals to be used in Colorado drilling. He claims that there were 171 substances on the list, and that 92 percent of them had health effects ranging from sinus irritation to reproductive organ damage (Marritz).
The result of hydraulic fracturing is a by-product of water mixed with harmful chemicals that has to be disposed of somehow. Large pits are dug in order to contain the poisoned waste water but some of it may leak into the water supply (Powell). As new drills are being put up in Pennsylvania the question of possible contamination of Philadelphia’s water supply is now imminent (Powell). Pennsylvania has been subject to recent drilling for natural gas and the citizens of the communities there are banding together in order to help other areas not become wastelands. The recent documentary by Josh Fox called Gasland used Pennsylvania as its base for showing the environmental destruction caused by drilling. He goes across the country interviewing people who have had drilling done on their land and shows us the effects it has on the environment and the people.
The question now becomes, will the environmental damage caused by hydrofracking outweigh the money paid to landowners by gas companies? New York could become subject to this highly destructive process that has been exempted from all environmental protection laws. The DEC of New York has put a temporary ban on all drilling in the State but this could soon become lifted as more and more pressure arises from energy companies.
Rachel Carson said it the best while talking about the use of pesticides and water pollution. “In the entire water-pollution problem, there is probably nothing more disturbing than the threat of widespread contamination of groundwater. It is not possible to add pesticides to water anywhere without threatening the purity of water everywhere” (Carson). In fact the US department of Energy considers the waste water that is produced in gas drilling to be one of the most toxic of all industrial by-products (Marritz). This would surely affect the people who live in or around the area where the gas is found, but what if it ended up affecting all the people of the State. Are the Adirondacks safe from the effects of hydrofracking in central New York? Unlike central New York and the Catskills, the Adirondack watersheds will not be polluted by hydrofracking, and that is exactly my point. If you contaminate New York City’s main water supply where will they turn for clean water? Is the Adirondacks protection in jeopardy if New York’s water supply becomes polluted? We must ask how strong are the federal, state, and the parks protections against this scenario.
If this process of extraction is so detrimental to the environment, how can it be allowed to be carried out in our country? The environmental decade came in the 1970s when the federal government set up laws in order to ensure the protection of our environment. There was the Clean Water Act, The Clean Air Act, The Safe Drinking Water act, The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) all aimed at protecting our basic human rights and our environment. All of these laws deal directly with such a process as extracting natural gas from the ground. Then how do they not apply to hydrofracking, a process that has been deemed highly destructive to our environment? So if this process of hydrofracking is so bad to humans and the environment, how do these laws allow it? Well there is nothing I would like to say more than, hydrofracking must be a safe process if it is allowed to be practiced in our country, but the truth is far from it. We will take look at these laws in order to figure out why they are not applied to natural gas extraction processes, and the citizens exposed to it.
The Safe Drinking Water Act was set up in 1974 to make sure everyone has access to clean and safe drinking water. Hydrofracking and the chemicals used can pollute drinking water, but it is exempt from this law, let’s see how this happened. “Many of the nearly 270,000 oil and natural gas wells drilled in the West since 1980 have employed hydraulic fracturing which, as I have described, involves tens of thousands to six million gallons of toxic water being pumped into the ground. In 2008 the federal Bureau of Land Management documented benzene contamination in water wells in Sublette County, Wyoming, the site of the nation’s largest natural gas fields” (Horwitt). Benzene is used in hydraulic fracturing and can have negative effects on humans and although it was never directly linked to natural gas there “is no other likely source for it in the area”. “In a 1997 case involving hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane (CBM) wells, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s underground injection standards applied to hydraulic fracturing” (Horwitt). The EPA did a study and, in a statement that was deeply criticized, concluded that “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat” to drinking water (Horwitt). Basically the EPA recommended that “states should enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act to set standards for any hydraulic fracturing that might threaten underground sources of drinking water” (Horwitt). Maybe the EPA did not want to deal with it so they put the responsibility on the states to enforce the law. “In 2005 Congress exempted most hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act” (Horwitt). Did Congress make this decision based on the EPA’s report? Were Congress and the EPA lobbied by energy companies to achieve the exemption?
The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is aimed at properly containing and disposing of harmful waste products. You would think it would apply to hydrofracking with all the waste water that is produced, but once again it is exempt, let’s take a look. “Since 1980 natural gas wells drilled in the West have enjoyed an exemption from the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), passed in 1976 to establish a cradle-to-grave hazardous waste management program” (Horwitt). “The law sets standards for disclosure and safety in handling hazardous waste, for reducing such waste and for developing non-toxic alternatives” (Horwitt). “In 1988, the EPA and Congress agreed not to apply RCRA to oil and gas wastes, overriding objections from some officials at EPA after the agency had documented 62 cases in which oil and gas wastes had caused damage” (Horwitt). Members of the EPA told the press that this was because of pressure from gas companies; later administrators at the EPA denied these allegations (Horwitt).
The Clean Water Act was designed to make sure that our water supplies stay clean and safe for use. You would think that this would apply to hydrofracking, but once again it is exempt, let’s see how this happened. The byproduct of hydrofracking does not always end up in the designated pits and by run-off or leaking it can seep into groundwater which can cause a massive problem. “Natural Gas and Oil companies have drilled thousands of wells out West since 1980 under an exemption from the Clean Water Act that sets standards for storm water discharge. The exemption overlooked the potential for significant runoff from thousands of well pads, pipelines and other infrastructure” (Horwitt). “In 1987 Congress added amendments to the Clean Water Act requiring the EPA to develop a permitting program for storm water runoff. These amendments too, exempted oil and gas exploration, production, processing or treatment of operations, and transmission facilities” (Horwitt). “In 1992 the EPA required storm water permits for gas companies drilling on areas of five acres or more. But in the 2005 Energy Bill, Congress extended the exemption to all gas facilities” (Horwitt).
An example of the damages caused by this exemption is shown in “The San Juan River below Navajo Dam which has seen a dramatic decline in the quality of fishing over the last seven years” (Horwitt). At one time this area was known as one of “the best trout fishing spots in the world.” Anglers have complained that “the fishing has dwindled due to sediment run-off impacting the river that has coincided with a dramatic increase in oil and natural gas development and infrastructure. Over the past 30 years, companies have drilled close to 20,000 wells in the county” (Horwitt). The Clean Water act was set up for the purpose of not allowing this type of pollution. Then why is it not enforced? Again we see the necessary laws are in place in order to not allow this type of environmental destruction, but natural gas extraction has gained a controversial exemption from these laws.
The Clean Air Act was put in place to make sure our air does not become polluted. This should apply to hydrofracking, but once again it is exempt. “The Natural Resources Defense Council has found that in Garfield County, Colorado, 460 gas wells released more than 30 tons of benzene, a known carcinogen, into the air” (Horwitt). This is in clear violation of the Clean Air Act, but once again natural gas companies are exempt from this law. “The EPA can set standards for facilities if they are within a metropolitan area with a population greater than one million people. The Denver metropolitan area is the only metro area in the Rocky Mountain West where the population exceeds one million, leaving all other areas of the Rocky Mountain West exempt from the Clean Air Act” (Horwitt). Superfund is used to clean up areas that have become contaminated due to pollution, but once again the law defines this term to exclude oil and natural gas (Horwitt).
After the environmental decade, when our country made sure to protect the people and the environment from pollution, how did natural gas exploration and extraction become exempt from these laws? Natural Gas is big business for many energy companies today, and they have no doubt added pressure to the EPA and Congress concerning these exemptions. The company that produces one of the chemical formulas used in hydrofracking is Halliburton (Jones). In 2005 Dick Cheney was the CEO of the company before taking the vice president role under George W Bush. Many of the current exemptions for the exploration and extraction of oil and gas come from Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force which was set up to reduce our dependency on foreign energy (Jones). They put together a report for Congress recommending even more exemptions for natural gas. How’s that for corrupt politics? Our vice president lobbying for a company he used to work for (with which he is still involved) that encourages such an unsafe practice to occur legally in our country?
The EPA has just released a statement saying that it sent out letters to nine natural gas companies requesting detailed information about the chemicals used in the hydrofracking process (Thomas-Blate). The companies have nine days in which to consider the request and thirty days to turn over the documents. “America’s Most Endangered Rivers has been encouraging everyone to tell Congress to pass the FRAC Act, legislation that would require disclosure of chemicals to the public” (Thomas-Blate). This is promising in the arena of keeping New York’s water supply uncontaminated, but the real question is will the energy companies play ball? Especially when they have to know that the chemicals they use in hydrofracking do cause harm to humans and the environment?
We have seen that Natural Gas extraction and exploration are exempt from many federal laws that they should fall under. The EPA is only now beginning to take the matter back into the hands of the federal government by asking gas companies to disclose a list of chemicals they use with hydrofracking. We have seen the outcome in many different places across our nation where hydrofracking has been allowed. But will this cause the federal government to look into all-out banning or more regulation of this process? Most likely not, so we and the gas companies have to look at the state’s rules and regulations concerning hydrofracking. Now we must turn to New York State in order to see why they have put a temporary ban on the process. They must have specific reasons for stalling it. Is the Department of Environmental Conservation concerned with New York City’s water supply? If they allow hydrofracking to occur are the Adirondacks really safe from water diversion to supply one of the nation’s largest cities?
It is no secret that our country’s economy is in a tough situation. New York State itself has seen cutbacks in many state jobs as well as a serious amount of debt piling up, so the gas companies, which are continuing to buy land rights, are now trying harder than ever to be allowed to tap this potential “goldmine” of natural gas. They have begun to put ads in local papers promoting the energy source and have even been letting the state know that they are missing out on a lot of tax revenue by not allowing hydrofracking (NCPR).
New York State has allowed the mining of oil, natural gas, and solution salt to take place for over 100 years. It has helped the state’s economy and is said “to have contributed over a half a billion dollars to the State’s economy a year” (DEC Oil & Gas). Right here we see a very simple and important means for the State to acquire money. This would also mean more money for the State to allow hydrofracking. If there is as much gas as previously predicted in the Marcellus Shale, you can see why gas companies are trying hard to persuade the state to allow them to drill. In order to figure out why the State has temporarily banned the process, we must look and try to find the reasons they have for it.
Gas companies have gotten by the federal laws that are supposed to control natural gas extraction and exploration. They have gone to states that do not have systems and laws in place to make their highly profitable enterprise be stopped. One state close to us, Pennsylvania, has had serious problems with the natural gas drilling that they have allowed to take place. Even though our state is known for its high taxes and cuts that are happening everyday to reduce our budget, we still have strong laws and regulations in place to protect the health of our people and our environment. The State Environmental Quality Review Act demands that impact statements are made for any proposed actions in the extraction of oil and gas (DEC Oil & Gas). Here again, we see that our state has the necessary laws in place to make sure we do not allow anything that could have negative implications down the road.
The DEC has published a document that explains and analyzes the potential impact of natural gas drilling in the state, if that drilling is done by horizontal drilling and high volume hydrofracking (the only way to get to the Marcellus Shale). The document is called a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) and it is intended to “outline Safety Measures, protection standards, and mitigation strategies that operators would have to follow to obtain permits” (SGEIS). This document was made in order to outline the possible environmental impacts of this type of drilling and was put up so that the citizens of New York could see just what could happen if the moratorium were lifted. The DEC put it up on 9-30-09 so that the public could review it and respond to the agency with comments and concerns.
The current findings in the SGEIS were a part of a 12 year effort by the DEC and the public, which includes hearings and open discussions about the statement. They addressed every possible issue correlated with the extraction of oil and gas in New York State. In 1992, the DEC investigated the impact of oil and gas wells and found out that “individual oil or gas well drilling permits anywhere in the state, when no other permits are involved, does not have a significant environmental impact” (SGEIS). This impact statement applies to most all wells drilled for oil and gas in the state, unless they are close to municipal water supplies or state parks, which would mean more permits from the DEC (SGEIS). This means that new wells being put up would fall under this impact statement and would not need to make a new one.
The final product of the DEC impact statement was almost completed, which was a culmination of years’ worth of work, when in 2008 something changed. The final SGEIS was finished, but the problem was that the state would need to do more research. The State Environmental Quality Review Act states that if the “proposed action may have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed” then the final SGEIS would need to add it (SGEIS). So in 2008, “the Department determined that some aspects of the current and anticipating application of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing warrant further review in the context of a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (SGEIS). The missing parts of the impact statement included the amounts of water needed for drilling, the possibility of the New York City watershed being polluted, and the length of time of possible disturbance at sites with many wells (SGEIS).
In the Introduction to the SGEIS, the State claims that it has received applications for permits from companies which wish to drill in the State. The state then goes on to talk about specific areas for applying permits as well as future potential sites of extraction. Then it addresses New York State’s responsibility to the citizens and the environment: “The State of New York’s official policy, enacted into law, is ‘to conserve, improve, and protect its natural resources and environment,’ and it is the department’s responsibility to carry out this policy” (SGEIS). It then goes on to discuss its main goals, which include the protection of resources, avoid chance of pollution of air and water, and the regulation of preventing pollution (SGEIS). While defending the public and the environment, “the department is also required by article 23 of the ECL to prevent waste of the State’s oil and gas resources, to provide for greater ultimate recovery of the resources, and to protect correlative rights”(SGEIS). So we see that the State is not only responsible for protecting the public and the environment but it is supposed to take full advantage of possible resource extraction that could help the state and its people.
The ECL is the Environmental Conservation Law, which is what the DEC follows. The ECL also tells us that the “DEC’s Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Law supersedes all local laws relating to the regulation of oil and gas development except for local government jurisdiction over local roads and the right to collect real property tax” (SGEIS). Thus, the State has complete control over mining for natural resources in New York, and local governments cannot ban hydrofracking. New York is also a part of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) with multiple other states. The group’s main concern is to promote “conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources, while protecting health, safety, and the environment” (SGEIS). This seems to be a very important aspect of state control of the extraction of gas. It allows many different stakeholders to take part in the discussion of new technologies and possible environmental impacts (SGEIS). This helps us to see that New York will not simply allow hydrofracking to occur in order to gain capital, especially when it could really use it. That is why we are fortunate to have such an agency as the DEC which makes sure resource extraction and management are carried out the right way. Other states do not have such a strict policy (Grannis) and we have seen gas companies’ drill almost without question, leaving the people to clean up after.
The previous commissioner of the DEC, Peter Grannis, gave testimony at the New York State assembly hearing on Oil and Gas Drilling to discuss the draft supplement for the GEIS on October 15, 2009. He began by explaining why he was there and the background information about the DEC and its research about gas and oil drilling. He talks about how the State was well aware of the “fracking fluids” involved and only with full disclosure of the chemicals would it proceed with the permitting. So there are 197 chemicals which have been relayed to the Department (only a few are listed in the document). He goes on to discuss the transportation and storage of the waste water after drilling has taken place. He concludes that there should not be any problems with this part of the hydrofracking.
On further review of the SGEIS document, it seems that after the time for public review, some of the most common concerns dealt with the “Potential degradation of New York City’s surface drinking water supply and potential ground-water contamination from the hydraulic fracturing procedure itself” (SGEIS). So the state did seriously consider these possible problems caused by drilling for natural gas. The biggest surprise is that it concludes the section with the final statement of “neither potential impact is reasonable or anticipated” (SGEIS). The question now becomes, if there is no potential for environmental problems or possible problems with human health, when will the moratorium be lifted?
Section 6.1.10 of the SGEIS talks about the potential of contaminating the city’s water supply. It lays out the basics of the underground systems that give the city its water, and then goes on to explain how this type of drilling would take place thousands of feet underground so the city’s water supply would not be affected. The main reason, it seems, is that the city and the state are so concerned is that if the reservoirs did happen to become polluted it would cost them millions in a filtration system to make the water safe (SGEIS 6.1.10). Instead of a list of possible negative outcomes that could come from drilling, it is more of a list of reasons why nothing bad could possibly happen. The list is truly filled with such statements as “hydraulic fracturing is an intensely controlled and monitored activity” and “many chemicals, and chemicals dissolved in water, are subject to evaporation during the warmer months of the year, reducing the volumes or concentrations that would reach reservoirs” (SGEIS 6.1.10). This document is very complex and filled with lengthy descriptions that would confuse anyone. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation said it, so it must be true, right? Let us be reminded of how much money is involved with this process as well as how much the tax revenues could help the State.
Chapter 9 of the impact statement discusses possible alternatives to the regulation and the possibility of prohibiting hydraulic fracturing with high-volume water and horizontal drilling. This passage contains the conclusion of the DEC: “The prohibition of development of Marcellus Shale and other low permeability gas reservoirs by horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing would be contrary to New York State and national interest” (SGEIS 9.1). The DEC clearly states that, if we do not extract the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, it would be bad for New York and the rest of the country. They even go on to say that it would directly contradict Article 23-0301 of the Environmental Conservation Law. This law basically says that if we can efficiently extract gas or oil without harming our environment or the public, then we should do so.
“The Draft 2009 New York State Energy Plan recognizes the potential benefit to New York from development of the Marcellus Shale natural gas resource” (SGEIS 9.1). Here they lay out all the possible benefits from tapping into this domestic source of energy: “the production and use of in-state energy sources can increase reliability and security of our energy systems, reduce energy costs, and contribute to meeting climate change, public health and environmental objectives” (SGEIS 9.1). They then speak of the possible money to be made by upstate land owners, how natural gas prices would go down for New Yorkers, jobs would increase and, the big one, there would be “increased State revenue from taxes and land-owner leases and royalties” (SGEIS 9.1).
Overall the SGEIS leads me to conclude that there are more reasons to allow hydrofracking in the future than to ban it. Grannis’ testimony shows us that the DEC is more or less explaining to the public that hydrofracking will benefit the state. But is New York State protecting itself from future legal problems by explaining to us that they did a detailed report and found that the process was indeed safe? Most likely not, but there is a big incentive for the State to go ahead and allow this process to proceed, and that is the financial gain, especially at this slow economic time.
Recently, Governor Patterson of New York has put another moratorium on horizontal drilling until July 2011. He believes that this will give the DEC more time in order to figure out the impacts of horizontal drilling (NCPR Governor Signs). He also vetoed a bill that would have banned all hydrofracking because vertical fracturing “has been carried out safely in the state for decades” (NCPR Governor Signs). This will give the citizens of the State more time to band together and fight to ensure that this moratorium becomes permanent. The New York Public Interest Research Group is now looking for someone to lead a “campaign to reach the tens of thousands of New Yorkers affected by natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale” (NYPIRG). This will help to bring more awareness to the issue in the hopes that we can continue to protect our people and our environment.
What if this process is allowed to be pursued and our water does in fact become polluted? Let’s say that after years of drilling for natural gas on the Marcellus Shale, the water from the Catskills becomes polluted, and New York City needs a new source. The Adirondack Park is one of the jewels of state parks on the East Coast. It has a long and complex history and is very important to the State. Bill Mckibben, a leading conservationist, claims that the Adirondacks are one of the largest recovering ecosystems on the planet and can be used as a model of how man and nature can coexist (Hall). It has millions of visitors every year and is one of the main attractions for outdoor lovers. What if we needed its water to supply New York? That would not be possible, for the Adirondacks are constitutionally protected by article 14 of the NYS constitution, which states that no public land can be sold, cut, or developed in any way. Could this protection be dropped if it was an absolute necessity to gain clean water for the rest of the State? Yes: there have been attempts in the past to interpret article 14 in ways that are inconsistent with its original purpose. Nicholas Robinson, from the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, tells us that Amendments have been proposed which would change it, and they are subject to a referendum, or public vote (Robinson). If clean water were needed for the millions of people of New York City, voters or a judge might side with the law being interpreted to allow development of dams and reservoirs in the Adirondacks. In order to ensure future protection for the Adirondacks and other watersheds, I propose the State put an all-out ban on horizontal drilling and high-volume water hydraulic fracturing.
Water Wars by Vandana Shiva tells us about how future problems in our world will most likely deal with water rights. She argues that water is a right that everyone in the world should have, but the privatization of water has left many people without this basic human right. Natural Gas drilling does not only endanger water around the small drilling area, but it also could contaminate the groundwater which would affect everyone (Powell). Additionally a huge amount of water must be used in order to extract the natural gas from the ground. It is certain that water, and its contamination by people, will continue to be a big question in the future of this planet.
Natural gas is not only a non-renewable resource but its extraction for the Marcellus Shale adds to the possibility of water pollution. New York State should call for an-all out ban on hydrofracking in the state. Natural Gas has gained an exemption from federal laws and has gone on to pressure for permission from the states regulations concerning hydrofracking. Many states have allowed them to extract the resource with limited regulations. New York has stricter regulations but, as I have shown, the DEC seems open to hydrofracking and the natural gas companies have been persistent and might end up being allowed to tap into the Marcellus Shale. If they get around the state’s regulations, then the Adirondacks protection could be the next step to overcome, if they have to fix the problem of groundwater pollution. The one and only reason I feel they need to provide to the gas companies and the public is “we are protecting and utilizing a much more important resource than natural gas: WATER!”
Bibliography
Carson, Rachel. “Silent Spring” Mariner Book Houghton Mifflin Company 1962
DEC- "Gas Well Drilling in the Marcellus Shale." NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) (2010): pag. Web. 21 Oct 2010.
DEC-“Oil and Gas.” NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) (2010)
“Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program.” Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) (2010).
France, David. "The New Natural-Gas Rush in the Catskills." New York Magazine (2010): pag. Web. 12 Oct 2010.
"Gas Industry hopes for hydrofracking action." NCPR News. North Country Public Radio: Canton, 11-22-2010. Radio. 5 Dec 2010.
“Governor Signs Worker protection, Vetoes Hydrofracking Ban” NCPR News- North Country Public Radio: Canton, 12-14-10
Grannis, Pete – Commissioner of NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.
Hall, Anthony F. –Adirondack Council Bill Mckibben: Making the Adirondack Park a Model for the 21st Century PDF
Horwitt, Dusty “Free Pass for Oil and Gas: Environmental Protections Rolled Back as Western Drilling Surges: Oil and Gas Industry Exemptions." Environmental Working Group (2010): pag. Web. 25 Oct 2010.
Jones, Sarah. "Gasland: Dick Cheney Poisons Your Drinking Water Too." Politicususa (2010): pag Web. 21 Nov 2010.
Marritz, Llya. “Natural Gas Drilling: is New York ready?” WNYC News, (2010): pag. Web. 12 Oct 2010
NYPIRG. New York Public Interest Research Group “Positions Available with NYPIRG.”
Powell, Nick. "Marcellus Shale Ain't Nothin' To Frack With." Philidelphia Weekly (2010): pag. Web. 28 Sep 2010.
Robinson, Nicholas A. “ Forever Wild”: New York’s Constitutional Mandates to Enhance the Forest Preserve. Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks (2007).
Thomas-Blate, Jessie. "EPA Makes a Move on Chemical Disclosure for Hydrofracking." Most Endangered Rivers (2010): pag. Web. 1 Nov 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment