Drilling safe in NY? They said it was safe in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas.... the Gulf, too

NYC City Hall Rally (0.00 / 0)

Those of you in the NY metro region can also go to a rally on Friday-- (ours in Ithaca is Saturday...)

MEDIA ADVISORY AND DAYBOOK ITEM for FRIDAY, June 11, 2010

Contact: Stephanie Low, 212-534-4103, stephlow@mindspring.com

NEW YORK LEGISLATORS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO CALL FOR FRACKING MORATORIUM

New York state legislators, environmentalists and other public officials will gather on the steps of New York City Hall Friday in support of a state bill (A-10490/S-7592) that issues a moratorium for proposed natural gas drilling in upstate New York until the federal Environmental Protection Agency completes its study of its safety nationwide. Joining them will be leaders of organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, that sent Memoranda in Support of the bill to the New York state legislature.

Natural gas drilling - particularly a process called hydraulic fracturing or fracking - raises serious concerns about its impact on water quality and public health. Incidents of contaminated water supplies, air and soil where fracking is already allowed around the country are mounting. Yet, New York state is poised to begin issuing drilling permits in the next several months, putting the drinking water supply for millions of  New Yorkers across the state at risk.  

The cumulative environmental and public health impacts of fracking have never been adequately assessed, but the EPA has just begun a two-year study of the effects on water and health. The proposed legislation requires New York to wait 120 days after EPA completes this report before making a final decision on fracking for the state.            

---

by: robinia @ Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 20:49:17 PM UTC

horizontal, slick-water hydrofracking ?????? (4.00 / 1)

http://www.peacecouncil.net/NO...

What is Hydrofracking?

Slick water hydraulic fracturing, also known as hydrofracking, is a new development in natural gas extraction. The process was created by Halliburton Inc. (well known for its work in Iraq and elsewhere), Schlumberger Inc., and Messina Inc. This process makes mining for natural gas in dense shale more economically possible, where before it was not.  

Slick water hydrofracking is different from conventional natural gas drilling in a couple of ways. First, slick water hydrofracking uses significantly more water than conventional drilling, as well as a "slick water" mixture that is pumped into the shale to fracture the rock and release the gas. Second, there is an increased potential for toxicity and its long-term impacts. Finally, there is the environmental impacts of the drilling: surface and subterranean damage including forestland loss, multiple well sites, groundwater and surface water contamination, habitat and species disturbance, and likely an increased number of access roads to the well sites.

Figure1. Conceptual sketch to illustrate the concept of horizontal
drilling and hydrofracing. (By permission of Geology.com)

Actual fracking site

Unfortunately, slick water hydrofracking is being used in the largest deposit of Marcellus shale in the United States, as well as other areas of the country. This deposit's approximate area is 48,000 square miles, stretching from eastern Ohio to the Catskills and south through northern and western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. It was formed 48 million of years ago when North America was still covered by an ocean. The Marcellus basin deposit is estimated to hold as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or the equivalent of 80 billion barrels of oil.

The Process, Specifically

To begin, the drilling company sets up the dill site by cutting down any surrounding trees and groundcover, most likely build an access road and rig, set up their necessary equipment, and truck in water, proppant, and chemicals.

After the drill site has been set up and prepared, the drill bores a well downward and then horizontally for up to 8,000 feet in each direction. While the drill bears downward, it will drill through the natural aquifer, or water table.

So what's the problem?

Slick water hydrofracking involves a process that utilizes 6-8 million gallons of freshwater per fracking (though this varies with the depth of the shale and the gas deposits), and sand or other lighweight "proppants" (substances used to prop open the fissures caused by the well bore to allow the gas to seep through the pores in the shale). Following the injection of both the water and the proppant, several chemical-based additives are used to create a more timely, efficient, and overall more economic process. Some of the chemical additives frequently used include: diesel fuel, biocides, benzene (an additive to gasoline and industrial solvent), and hydrochloric acid.

Companies employing this method of natural gas extraction have resisted efforts to require disclosure of what chemicals and in what amounts they use, only assuring us they these chemicals are used in "small amounts". However, "small amount" is generally unspecific, and some of these chemicals (especially benzene) are harmful at any level of exposure, even toxic at an exposure level of only parts per trillion. This matters because if any of these chemicals were to mingle with the water table, under which lies the shale with a layer of bedrock in between, it is possible that people's drinking water could be affected.

Additionally, how companies are containing the slick water post-fracking varies from company to company, sometimes with a great potential for soil and groundwater contamination.

fracking effluent pit.

Man, another way to ruin more natural resources!!

---

by: hawkny @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 03:39:24 AM UTC

A few more details (4.00 / 1)

The process was first developed in 1949, but wasn't all that profitable until a couple of things happened.  First, and most importantly, the price of natural gas went up, making it economically feasible to use this expensive process.  Second, the technology for horizontal drilling was developed.  Horizontal drilling allows a driller to dig one hole and then spread out underground to cover a lot more area; it's generally cheaper than digging a bunch of separate holes to cover the same ground.

Hydrofracking which, as hawkny said, was developed by Halliburton, has had something of a boom ever since Dick Cheney was put in charge of energy policy for this country.  (Gee, I can't imagine why.)  Several states in the west use it to extract natural gas from deep coal beds.  It's also in use in the south and southwest, most notably in the Fort Worth, TX area -- a shale deposit known as the Barnett shale.

In 2004 the EPA completed a "study" of hydrofracking.  They concluded that it didn't need to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and tried to implement that conclusion, until a federal court told them where to stick it.  Undeterred, they slipped a provision into the 550-page "Energy Policy Act of 2005" that specifically exempted hydrofracking -- and that opened the floodgates.

Now, the EPA has decided to conduct a two-year, real, unbiased study of the effects of hydrofracking.  In Albany, some people have decided that we should wait for the results of this study before allowing more gas drilling in New York -- in other words, a moratorium.  The Assembly bill (A.10490) has passed the Environmental Protection committee on a 22-7 vote (note:  it was bipartisan; even right-wingnut Greg Ball not only voted for it but was also a cosponsor).  The Senate committee hasn't met to vote on the Senate version of the bill (S.7592).

There are two distinct possibilities:  The Senate leadership (i.e. John Sampson) could take the bill from the Environmental Protection committee and route it straight through the Codes committee, or a new bill sponsored by EP committee chair Antoine Thompson, which calls for a one-year moratorium, could be introduced.

Here are the problems:  The current bills have been significantly watered down to include only new permits for horizontal drilling; new vertical wells would still be allowed if the state DEC decides it's okay (don't get me started on the DEC or its commissioner, Pete Grannis!).  Getting them passed would be better than nothing, but that's about the best that could be said of them.  The one-year moratorium might include vertical wells, but it might not, and meanwhile they haven't even been introduced, and there is no word that one is even being considered in the Assembly.

Meanwhile, six of the seven who voted against the watered-down moratorium represent districts with a lot of Marcellus shale (the seventh is from Long Island).  A lot of people who live in the area believe that drilling will bring in lots (I mean LOTS) of money, and won't cause major health problems.  The fact that the opposite is most likely true cannot be proven, and it's extremely difficult to get people to listen when their minds are already made up.

Clear as mud?  Well, that's life in the big, cruel world.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 04:25:52 AM UTC

Just like that, but for one thing... (0.00 / 0)

The Moratorium bill's sponsor, Addabbo-- at least according to his staffers-- is recommending that the emergency route be through the Rules Committee.  Or that at least is the word on the activists' email lists.

The threat is immediate (property value busts can even pre-date drilling activities, as many or most banks will not write mortgages for homes if the mineral rights to the property have been leased... FHA requires a buffer of 300 ft., I believe, from neighboring properties with gas leases).  In my county, over a third of the land mass is already leased to gas companies.  The issue of horizontal vs. vertical has been overblown-- not much activity will take place if horizontal fracking is prohibited for a time (one or two years).  If Thompson somehow needs to take credit for it, oh well, if he needs to deny much involvement, oh well, too.  They should just play whatever nonsense game they need to in order to get us and our land protected for the time being.  Which, perhaps, involves paying off Espada the Extortionist, judging by recent news.  

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 15:19:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the answer to your question is obvious... (0.00 / 0)

...if we don't let drillers buy rights now, before the epa study is complete, they might not be able to afterward.

besides...as of today, it's not unsafe.

might be later, of course, but, officially, it's not unsafe today.

"The Pilgrims Were Not Illegal Aliens"- Bart Simpson writing on the chalkboard.

---

by: fake consultant @ Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:23:44 AM UTC

Thank you for the education gentlemen/women. With that said, (0.00 / 0)

get the fracking hydrofracking ouddddaaaaaaaheeaaaarrrr!

We can buy all the natural gas we need from our Canadian friends to the north, at a discount, no less.

---

by: hawkny @ Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 17:22:32 PM UTC