Hydrofracking for natural gas in Catskills

[Puma concolor]

I don't think Peakbagr's above comment was directed at me, but I think it's hard to completely separate hydrofracking from politics since it is ultimately the politicians who will decide on the future of the industry in New York. We can talk about the science and environmental impact of it all day long, but without getting public opinion on the right side of the issue, big money will eventually win out. And if money wins out, hydrofracking stands a good chance of gaining a foothold in the Catskills. As it stands right now, public opinion on fracking in NY seems to be split pretty much right down the middle and politicians on both sides of the aisle are certainly aware of this.

 

[Peakbagr]

Not aimed at yours, but the one immediately preceding my last one which was deleted. I was concerned when starting the thread that it could turn political given the justifyably emotional issues with what is happening and could happen in northern PA and southern NY.

People are welcome to comment on the science and concerns but I think most people will agree that we can keep politics out of the discussion, regardless of which side of the issue you stand. The moderators would really prefer to let people talk but don't want to referee the PMs and complaints from people about 'politics'. There have been an incredible 10,747 views of the thread so far, so lets do our best to discuss an issue of concern to many without having to shut it down.

 

[Quietman]

This article shows some of the surface polution issues that are occuring in N. Dakota. Pretty scary stuff.

 

[Little Rickie]

big money will eventually win out. And if money wins out, hydrofracking stands a good chance of gaining a foothold in the Catskills. .

I'm sure this will happen.

"As it stands right now, public opinion on fracking in NY seems to be split pretty much right down the middle and politicians on both sides of the aisle are certainly aware of this"

Actually split north and south. People in the south see the $, they have more gas, and people in the north, have less gas, see the harm. Clasic conflict. Money vs vigilance. Sorry to say money/big biz has the edge.

 

[Puma concolor]

Actually split north and south. People in the south see the $, they have more gas, and people in the north, have less gas, see the harm. Clasic conflict. Money vs vigilance. Sorry to say money/big biz has the edge.

Agreed. I will never understand city folk. On one hand, they lead the charge when it comes to faux environmentalism, but when dollars come to sense and real issues arise, they side with whatever will increase the tax base 9 times out of 10.

(ready to walk off the 5-yard penalty for a quasi-political post )

 

[peakbagger]

As another example or regional NIMBY, Vermont banned fracking but is aggressively expanding their natural gas network from Burlington down to Rutland. There are renewable options like locally sourced biomass or renewable fuel oil, but natural gas is cheap and the drilling is not in their backyard. They also recently without a lot of fanfare signed on with Hydro Quebec for a lions share of their power needs.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...They also recently without a lot of fanfare signed on with Hydro Quebec for a lions share of their power needs.

That Vermont buys power from Hydro Quebec isn't exactly news. IIRC, they've been buying power from them since at least the Snelling adminstration in the late 80's/early 90's. If Vermont Yankee closes, there's a need to replace that power from another source.

As for fracking - are you suggesting that if a state bans the using of fracking to obtain gas/oil, then residents of that state should not be allowed to consume gas or oil? And if you're not, would you care to share with us what your point is?

 

[peakbagger]

Lets review this comment

"As another example or regional NIMBY, Vermont banned fracking but is aggressively expanding their natural gas network from Burlington down to Rutland. There are renewable options like locally sourced biomass or renewable fuel oil, but natural gas is cheap and the drilling is not in their backyard".

I beleive that my point is that Vermont's approach is to have natural gas magically appear from somewhere else in much higher volumes than previously when there are viable local alternatives. Passing a bascially symbolic ban on fracking, didnt do anything to encourage local resources.

 

[nietzschescat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/n...counties.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytmetro&seid=auto

 

[DougPaul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/n...counties.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytmetro&seid=auto

From the above:

The plan, described by a senior official at the State Department of Environmental Conservation and others with knowledge of the administration’s strategy, would limit drilling to the deepest areas of the Marcellus Shale rock formation, at least for the next several years, in an effort to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination.

This may not be enough--leakage from the fractured rock is not the only route for the pollution to escape:

According to measurements described in "Natural gas wells leakier than believed" (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338505/title/Natural_gas_wells_leakier_than_believed), ~4% of the methane produced by gas wells was leaking. This was ~twice as much as had been thought.

Proper sealing of the well shaft is also required to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. (From what I have read, this can be difficult.) Pollution has also occurred from the surface facilities. (For instance, drilling produces large amounts of contaminated water...)

Doug

 

[Peakbagr]

Must be a topic of some interest with 11,741 views so far.

A reminder from the OP: Non political thoughts are welcome, political commentary is not.

 

[nietzschescat]

link to article in nytimes via watershed post

http://www.watershedpost.com/2012/cuomos-new-plan-hydrofracking-taking-page-nrdc


The link has a link to a good graphic in the NY Times article about where the shale is in NY and which towns have bans already in place. It looks like the "unofficial" plan is that the entire Catskill Park will be off limits and NYS won't allow hydrofracking in towns that have banned it.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/n...counties.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytmetro&seid=auto

I'm not a hydrologist, nor a geologist. However, as a layman I know that water can travel long distances in an aquifer, so allowing towns to determine whether or not fracking can occur seems myopic. It also puts resource demands upon towns that most cannot afford. For example - if a little town of 1,000 people decide not to allow fracking for X reasons, and that gets challenged in any type of regulatory/judicial proceeding by a deep-pockets energy company, how in the world is that town going to find the money necessary to defend their position?

 

[Remix]

Well today the Wall Street Journal reported:

America will halve its reliance on Middle East oil by the end of this decade and could end it completely by 2035 due to declining demand and the rapid growth of new petroleum sources in the Western Hemisphere, energy analysts now anticipate.


The shift, a result of technological advances that are unlocking new sources of oil in shale-rock formations, oil sands and deep beneath the ocean floor, carries profound consequences for the U.S. economy and energy security. A good portion of this surprising bounty comes from the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique perfected during the last decade in U.S. fields previously deemed not worth tampering with.

The thought of not having to be entangled in a part of world that knows alot of violence makes fracking a little more acceptable.

Mods-- if this crosses the line into politics pls delete, its understood in advance.

 

[Red Oak]

Well today the Wall Street Journal reported:

America will halve its reliance on Middle East oil by the end of this decade and could end it completely by 2035 due to declining demand and the rapid growth of new petroleum sources in the Western Hemisphere, energy analysts now anticipate.

The thought of not having to be entangled in a part of world that knows alot of violence makes fracking a little more acceptable.

Mods-- if this crosses the line into politics pls delete, its understood in advance.

The reliance on gas and oil by the U.S. is not acceptable in general imho. The potential long term "violence" done to areas being fracked is now being documented very well by the new york times.
The point that avoiding middle east violence to drill here is not a bad one but it seems more like a question of ecological ethics. So are we not just trading apples for oranges?
Drilling for oil in the U.S.A. has not really lowered our energy costs.Drive along the coast of Santa Barbara and see all the oil rigs offshore and then ask why the cost of gas is so high in California?It seems like maybe fracking will have the same results in regards to long term energy savings.Ironically we as hikers have to use gas to get up north.Thus we have to contribute to the energy crisis to enjoy nature.Quite the fracking mess....[not a expert on fracking here,just concerned more on local impacts from it;drinking water].This is not a political issue but a environmental one.

 

[Remix]

The reliance on gas and oil by the U.S. is not acceptable in general imho. The potential long term "violence" done to areas being fracked is now being documented very well by the new york times.
The point that avoiding middle east violence to drill here is not a bad one but it seems more like a question of ecological ethics. So are we not just trading apples for oranges?
Drilling for oil in the U.S.A. has not really lowered our energy costs.Drive along the coast of Santa Barbara and see all the oil rigs offshore and then ask why the cost of gas is so high in California?It seems like maybe fracking will have the same results in regards to long term energy savings.Ironically we as hikers have to use gas to get up north.Thus we have to contribute to the energy crisis to enjoy nature.Quite the fracking mess....[not a expert on fracking here,just concerned more on local impacts from it;drinking water].This is not a political issue but a environmental one.

I don't think that the article mentioned energy costs. It focuses on energy security. For instance, one has to wonder how much it costs to keep the sea lanes open from the Middle East in the event of a general conflict. If security needs were reduced, funding could be diverted to the prevention and remediation of fracking failures, not to mention avoiding loss of life.

The alternative is conservation, but only 1 in 3 people who have owned a hybrid buy another. (1 in 4 if you take Prius's out of the equation) - from the WSJ. With so many coal plants providing electricity, the notion that electric vehicles are good for the environment is questionable.

 

[Red Oak]

I don't think that the article mentioned energy costs. It focuses on energy security. For instance, one has to wonder how much it costs to keep the sea lanes open from the Middle East in the event of a general conflict. If security needs were reduced, funding could be diverted to the prevention and remediation of fracking failures, not to mention avoiding loss of life

Very good point about the shipping lanes,Iran comes to mind,as far as a potential conflict goes.I very much like your idea about safe fracking funding, but wonder if the process in general is too inherently flawed?Good discussion here....

 

[Raven]

Methane contamination of wells (Pa)

NPR report of methane contaminating wells and bubbling through the ground in Pa. Followed with a basic description of the process.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/28/160128351/methane-making-an-appearance-in-pa-water-supplies

After reading, it makes me wonder if leaks will pop up over the years from the closed wells with weaker casings or hastily-poured concrete....and even concrete does not last forever, and on a geological scale, it's gone in a blink. Those wells will all open eventually.

IMO, whatever your favorite energy source, chances are we will be using a variety of them. I'd like to see more conservation driving the reform and not simply trying to keep up with current need (no pun) by "producing" more energy (i.e. using up). (Ref: 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics)

One foolproof way to avoid a fracking accident is to not need the gas in the first place.

Sad for the people living with this contamination. Safe water doesn't need to be a luxury.

 

[Peakbagr]

Since this thread has been reanimated, pls let me remind folks to avoid political commentary. Especially with the 2 political conventions going on in a 2 week period of time.
I'm not commenting on the last post...just another reminder.

 

[Quietman]

I saw This Report today and wanted to add it to this thread. It would seem that fracking wastewater may be contaminated with radium. I was also disturbed by this statement:

Levels of salinity in the plant's discharge were up to 200 times higher than what is allowed under the Clean Water Act — and 10 times saltier than ocean water, Vengosh said. But fracking wastewater is exempt from that law, Vengosh said.

Why is fracking wastewater exempt? Granted, this report is about a single treatment plant, but it is concerning.