New York City Says NO to Marcellus Gas Production
Marcellus shale gas production promises a bountiful supply of domestically produced clean natural gas for millions of American consumers. Why then, is the city of New York adamantly opposed to gas drilling and what impact will their resistance have on Pennsylvanians?
In late December, the Department of Environmental Protection for New York City asked state officials to ban natural gas drilling in the Catskills watershed. Their reason? Concern that the city's upstate drinking water system could be damaged by natural gas exploration and exploitation.
New York City’s request for a ban from state officials has now received strong support from another source: the Federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed ''serious reservations'' about whether gas drilling should be allowed in New York City’s watershed. New York’s water system provides drinking water for 9 million people. The source of that water is an upstate watershed that covers roughly a million acres of farms, forests, lakes and streams.
The quality of drinking water from the watershed is extraordinarily high: New York's water is so clean and pure that the city has a special waiver from the EPA allowing them to distribute the water without filtration. City water engineers estimate it would cost at least $10 billion to build filtration plants if the water supply were to become contaminated. That’s $10 billion dollars of infrastructure costs imposed upon taxpayers.
The EPA was also critical of New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation's new guidelines for natural gas drilling. The 809-page draft document, released for public comment in November to great fanfare, is the most up-to-date, comprehensive document to be put together by any state regulatory agency anywhere in the United States.
The EPA was unimpressed with the draft, expressing serious concern as to whether the propsed new rules go far enough in protecting New York’s water supply and water quality. Worries about wastewater treatment and management of natural radioactive materials disturbed during drilling were also mentioned. Officials at the Department of Environmental Conservation may be forced to scrap their draft and start anew, extending the state’s18 month moratorium on gas exploration even longer.
For Pennsylvanians, New York’s hesitancy to support gas exploration appears, on the surface, to be their gain. The Commonwealth continues to approve drilling applications at a record-breaking rate. Signs of drilling-related activity are evident across the state’s northern tier. Why then, should residents be worried about the future? With the EPA now weighing in to the Marcellus Shale drilling debate, it is increasingly likely that drilling standards for shale exploration will be defined at the Federal, not state level. Given the EPA’s criticism of New York State’s draft guidelines, it is likely that Federal guidelines will end up being more stringent than anything Pennsylvania watchdogs would impose on the drilling industry.
With the EPA getting actively involved in the regulation of Marcellus gas drilling and more stringent environmental regulations likely on the way, 2010 promises to be a challenging years for gas drillers.
But gas exploration and environmental considerations don’t always have to be like oil and water.
Marcellus shale gas production remains an extraordinary blessing for both Pennsylvania and our country. Natural gas is a fantastic source of clean energy for our nation. Domestically produced gas supplies are safe from disruption by foreign events outside America’s control. Along with the economic benefits: a smaller balance of payments deficit (because we’re not buying energy products from unfriendly powers overseas) and the economic revitalization of Pennsylvania’s northern tier, shale gas production can be a win-win situation for gas companies, environmentalists and Pennsylvania citizens.
All the more reason to demand that local, state and federal watchdog agencies develop and release reasonable drilling standards as soon as possible. The longer the delay, the longer millions of American consumers will have to wait for domestically produced, clean natural gas.
Links:
New York Times: Hands Off the Watershed
New York Times: EPA Faults Proposed NY Gas Drilling Regulations
ProPublica: Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don’t Know
In late December, the Department of Environmental Protection for New York City asked state officials to ban natural gas drilling in the Catskills watershed. Their reason? Concern that the city's upstate drinking water system could be damaged by natural gas exploration and exploitation.
New York City’s request for a ban from state officials has now received strong support from another source: the Federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed ''serious reservations'' about whether gas drilling should be allowed in New York City’s watershed. New York’s water system provides drinking water for 9 million people. The source of that water is an upstate watershed that covers roughly a million acres of farms, forests, lakes and streams.
The quality of drinking water from the watershed is extraordinarily high: New York's water is so clean and pure that the city has a special waiver from the EPA allowing them to distribute the water without filtration. City water engineers estimate it would cost at least $10 billion to build filtration plants if the water supply were to become contaminated. That’s $10 billion dollars of infrastructure costs imposed upon taxpayers.
The EPA was also critical of New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation's new guidelines for natural gas drilling. The 809-page draft document, released for public comment in November to great fanfare, is the most up-to-date, comprehensive document to be put together by any state regulatory agency anywhere in the United States.
The EPA was unimpressed with the draft, expressing serious concern as to whether the propsed new rules go far enough in protecting New York’s water supply and water quality. Worries about wastewater treatment and management of natural radioactive materials disturbed during drilling were also mentioned. Officials at the Department of Environmental Conservation may be forced to scrap their draft and start anew, extending the state’s18 month moratorium on gas exploration even longer.
For Pennsylvanians, New York’s hesitancy to support gas exploration appears, on the surface, to be their gain. The Commonwealth continues to approve drilling applications at a record-breaking rate. Signs of drilling-related activity are evident across the state’s northern tier. Why then, should residents be worried about the future? With the EPA now weighing in to the Marcellus Shale drilling debate, it is increasingly likely that drilling standards for shale exploration will be defined at the Federal, not state level. Given the EPA’s criticism of New York State’s draft guidelines, it is likely that Federal guidelines will end up being more stringent than anything Pennsylvania watchdogs would impose on the drilling industry.
With the EPA getting actively involved in the regulation of Marcellus gas drilling and more stringent environmental regulations likely on the way, 2010 promises to be a challenging years for gas drillers.
But gas exploration and environmental considerations don’t always have to be like oil and water.
Marcellus shale gas production remains an extraordinary blessing for both Pennsylvania and our country. Natural gas is a fantastic source of clean energy for our nation. Domestically produced gas supplies are safe from disruption by foreign events outside America’s control. Along with the economic benefits: a smaller balance of payments deficit (because we’re not buying energy products from unfriendly powers overseas) and the economic revitalization of Pennsylvania’s northern tier, shale gas production can be a win-win situation for gas companies, environmentalists and Pennsylvania citizens.
All the more reason to demand that local, state and federal watchdog agencies develop and release reasonable drilling standards as soon as possible. The longer the delay, the longer millions of American consumers will have to wait for domestically produced, clean natural gas.
Links:
New York Times: Hands Off the Watershed
New York Times: EPA Faults Proposed NY Gas Drilling Regulations
ProPublica: Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don’t Know
Views: 175
Comment
-
Comment by Steven Hunt on April 5, 2011 at 11:31am -
I say shut off NYC's gas. Let them keep warm with Bloomburgs farts
-
Comment by BuckinghamGasMan on January 15, 2010 at 4:45am
-
The anti-drilling movement has also moved to the Finger Lakes region (A really beautiful area by the way) and they are treating the Finger Lakes as they do the NYC Watershed. Of course they don't even think about the huge salt caverns that are already under the Lakes where the salt that can really make the lakes briny is mined. But . . . thay are used to that process, like they are used to phone lines but not cell towers. People are so funny.
-
Comment by Jean Michel LeTennier on January 13, 2010 at 3:26pm
-
Hi Seth,
the Funny part is that the catskills are not so pristine... they like the adirondacks have been absorbing Sulphur and other gases from Toxic Rains from the older Coal and Oil Burning factories and power plants from the mid west and Pittsburg for decades.. Luckily the ground has been absorbing it, but a few people are concerned that if enough rain falls up here, pristine is the last thing the watershed will be... the Idea of building a water filtration palnt has been around for 20 or more years because they know what fell into the gound for the last 100 years and its only a matter of time before it catches up to them... Gas is just a good easy target to blame things on...
-
Comment by Scott Roberts on January 13, 2010 at 3:01pm
-
Seth---Thanks so much for your comments. Below is a link to a ProPublica article that suggests the industry is aware of more environmentally friendly approaches to drilling. Care to read the article and comment?
http://www.propublica.org/feature/underused-drilling-practices-coul...
-
Comment by Tom Copley on January 12, 2010 at 10:52am
-
Seth-- I agree with you on the NYC watershed issue. Drilling should probably be off-limits, although if that is going to be the case then some effort should be made to compensate landowner's for the impairment of their property rights to the subsurface minerals. Similarly, existing leaseholders could be bought-out. There should be no free lunches all the way around.
When carbon capture and sequestration become an economic and technical reality, then gas-fired power generation plants will produce zero CO2 emissions, be virtually pollution free, and roughly as green as wind and solar.
Since it will be very difficult to scale wind and solar up to achieve more than a few percent points of U.S. energy needs in the foreseeable future, then an attitude favorable to developing our natural gas resources which do scale-up can be viewed as more "responsible" and practical than other alternatives.
--Tom
-
Comment by Seth J Hersh on January 12, 2010 at 1:42am
-
The Catskills Watershed Agreement is an historic document, protecting the Catskills watershed from pollution so that its pristine waters can supply, unfiltered and gravity-fed, one of the best and cleanest water supplies in the world to NYC and its environs.
Is is understandable that the NYC's DEP and the federal EPA should be intolerant of inadequate plans and the "not if but when" pollution that will ensue if drilling is undertaken in the Marcellus Shale. This country is too consumed with short-term profits and "the sky is falling" attitude when it comes to thinking about the impact of a more energy-efficient country.
There's plenty of gas in the non-watershed areas for gas companies to pursue without endangering and/or compromising one of the unique water systems of the world.
Fracking requires large amounts of fresh water per well -- up to 8MM gallons by some estimates. And 40% of that is returned in a toxic condition which requires strict treatments to remove the contaminants. There are few available treatment plants in NY state to even handle this type of water -- and none who could handle the projected volume.
And without adequate enforcement, what will happen to surface aquifers if cementing casing points at 500-1000 ft are faulty or inadequate. Yes, most of the time the job is done correctly but what happens when it's not? If a bad casing job is left, surface contamination will result -- and once that occurs, Humpty Dumpty is cracked and you cannot put a pristine system back together again.
Carbon-based fuels are bad for the environment: we should use oil for hydraulic fluids and lubrication, not gasoline. And although natural gas is less "dirty", it is still a carbon-based fuel. Let's employ some longterm planning that plots effective development of alternative energy-based fuels -- and save our carbon-based fuels for that day in the far future when we really need them.
We need responsible attitudes, not irresponsible, knee-jerk attitudes of "drill, baby, drill" in every situation.
Seth J Hersh
former drilling engineer who is well familiar with the "fracking" process
-
Comment by Jean Michel LeTennier on January 11, 2010 at 4:03pm
-
why are they not watching Pennsylvania? who has much more gas than NY? Obviously the EPA and DEC don't care as much about PA as the do NY?
-
-
Scott-- All true, and progress with NGVs proves consumers won't wait around for regulators to hem and haw forever, but will simply vote with their pocketbooks. With any luck, we won't be compelled to rely upon imported LNG for vehicle fuel before said regulators, as you suggest, take action. --Tom
-
Comment by Greg Ricks on January 11, 2010 at 10:34am
-
The City and/or Federal governments should stand ready to compensate landowners for lost financial opportunities if they ban drilling on private lands in the watershed area.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
You need to be a member of GoMarcellusShale.com to add comments!
Join GoMarcellusShale.com