 | POLL: CLU08 went through $127/bbl today..so, in the next 60 days, the front month price of CL will... | The Oil Drum | CFTC Report on High Oil Prices - "Speculation My A$$" |  |
20 comments on Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
20 comments on Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I think the article is basically wrong. This is a 2004 Government Study that shows that there have been virtually no problems with water quality, in the nearly 60 years that hydro-fracturing has been used.
This is a link to a brochure explaining how hydro-fracturing is done.
I think it is an example of investigative journalism trying to sell more papers.
I'd say that the main story here is that there are a lot of unanswered question and the industry has to prove that this will not contaminate drinking water. New Yorkers are justified in wanting a lot of answers on all these questions before something is rushed through the legislature. Aside from the water contamination issues, there are issues of disposal. As some of the comments above point out, people have questions and they want answers that explain both the potential benefits and risks.
All of the information is out there for a journalist who was actually interested in getting the story right. These people were interested in stopping the drilling,not getting the story right. With one phone call, anyone could learn that they don't discharge the frac water on to the surface. They send it off somewhere where it can be cleaned up and injected or resused.
All that went through the legislature was the spacing regulations to drill horizontally in the Marcellus. There was nothing about the water in that bill. The DEC does not allow drilling or frac fluids to be discharged on the surface so there is no need for new legislation.
This article will bog down the permit application process and make life harder for everyone involved but will change nothing about how these wells are drilled and completed or where the water comes from and where it goes afterward.
It really is a terrible waste of time and distracts from real issues like climate change and peak oil.
The EPA study cited appears to only cover groundwater contamination linked to well bores. In at least one case there appeared to be methane pollution in ground and surface water from a fracture in a shallow formation (Fruitland) that created a channel to the aquifer. What the study specifically didn't cover is surface contamination or water table draw down problems that were also reported. It appears to say nothing about frac water disposal, air quality, storm water runoff, erosion, noise, quality of life, roads and taxes, property values, methamphetamine use or any of the many other issues that us ignorant environmentalists might be concerned about.
Since I only scanned the report for summaries of this stuff (I don't get paid to review overlong EPA reports), I could be way off base here and invite the TOD community to correct me. Ignorant, yet I want to learn.
The report also covers Coal Bed Methane (CBM) extraction instead of shale, and I wondered if those more informed could explain if there are any differences between CBM and shale UNG extraction in the context of New York vs. Colorado / New Mexico / Alabama, etc. Sorensen maybe?
In 2005, Weston Wilson, a longtime EPA employee in Denver blew the whistle on this issue in a letter to Colorado representatives. In 2007, the NRDC produced a report called "Drilling Down" which appears to be a more complete look at the picture than the 2004 EPA study cited above.
I'm not opposed to responsible resource exploration and production. In fact I'm looking into land purchase in the area, possibly to lease a well or two. I'm opposed to deception, obfuscation, oversimplification, railroading and outright lies regarding the impacts of gas drilling in New York.