The review, which was released last month, leaves some environmental concerns unanswered. It offers few specific measures to protect New York City's watershed -- the unfiltered source of drinking water for nearly half the state's population. It says that wastewater will be treated by facilities in New York and Pennsylvania, but does not confirm whether those plants have the capacity to receive Marcellus shale wastewater or the technology to make that water safe. Critics also complain it does little to describe how several thousand new wells would cumulatively affect air and water quality, leaving the analysis to a per-well basis.
"The DEC's shocking refusal to assess cumulative impacts undermines the validity of the entire study and if implemented will lead to devastating, unanticipated outcomes," said Roger Downs, a conservation associate at the Sierra Club's Atlantic Chapter, which has called for a ban on drilling in New York despite the Sierra Club's general support for gas development in the United States.
The review does, however, deal directly with some of most critical problems that have led to contamination in other drilling states.
It suggests strict limits on the kind of open waste pits that have led to hundreds of cases of water contamination in other states; guarantees additional scientific review before drilling can happen near water supplies; and requires government inspectors to be more regularly involved at several stages of the drilling and fracturing processes. An environmental review, sometimes including public hearings, would be required each time a gas well is proposed within 150 feet of a private water well, stream or pond or within 300 feet of a reservoir. An additional environmental review would also be required before gas wells could be hydraulically fractured within 1,000 feet of water supply infrastructure, or within 2,000 feet of the surface. Private water wells within 1,000 feet of a gas well would be tested before drilling begins, to create a baseline for measuring any future pollution.
The review recommends requiring that chemical-laden wastewater from hydraulic fracturing be enclosed in steel tanks rather than pits at well sites, a practice that has been proven to reduce the risk of spills and prevent evaporation of chemicals into the air. Some waste could still be kept in open pits, but new rules would require that those pits be emptied after seven days, and that state inspectors check the pits and their liners before they can be used again.
The review also suggests strengthening structural requirements to prevent leaks from inside gas well pipes, and establishing an explicit chain of custody record to make sure drilling wastewater is delivered to treatment facilities that are capable of accepting it.
Yancey Roy, a spokesman for the DEC, declined to answer questions about the document. Instead he cited passages in the environmental review. New York's industry group, the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York State, did not return calls for comment. Two prominent new natural gas industry associations -- America's Natural Gas Alliance and Energy In Depth -- also declined to comment on New York's rulemaking process.
The draft review, called the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, updates the state's 1992 drilling study. It was ordered by Gov. David Paterson last summer after an investigation by ProPublica found that the state was not familiar with the chemical makeup of fracturing fluids and was unprepared to manage a boom of modern drilling in the Marcellus shale.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentNice to see the work of ProPublica finding new readers on sciam.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are the dangers? Not much, really. Just the same danger posed by burning coal or oil, just about... Burning a ton of carbon NO MATTER IN WHAT FORM!!!!!! will release 3-2/3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, coal contains some more pollutants, but they are small potatoes compared with the danger of CO2.... We are on the brink of environmental catastrophe as it is, if we haven't already slipped over the edge.
\
So why any sane person should want to drill for more natural gas is beyond me.
CO2 isn't a pollutant, it is a critical requirement of life. When CO2 drops to about 150ppm, nearly all plant life on Earth will die. The more CO2 we have in the atmosphere, the more plants grow. Humanity already benefits from the increase of CO2 by having raised agricultural production about 30%. And higher CO2 lowers the irrigation requirement because of reduced stomata.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the carbon soot that has been found to cause most of the glacier and ice cap melt. And aerosol pollutants are a problem. But shifting manufacturing from the US to China only increases such pollution because their controls are less stringent. And where are the environmentalists and politicians going after East Asia for the 40,000,000,000 pounds of non-CO2 aerosol pollutants emitted every year? (2003 NASA data).
Natural gas is in fact 22X more effective as a GWG than CO2 so it is important to prevent leakage. But we can offset it by increasing biomass burning for energy because that bypasses the methane cycle.
Global Warming; Again? Still?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, guys, seen the weather? How 'bout you send some of the Global Warming to Michigan?
Granholm has made Consumers Energy to "sole" producer of electricity in Michigan, added a pre-pay tax for two new power plants, then put them on permanent *hold*. The tax? Still paying.
The weather? Coldest summer since the last ice age.
Drilling for Natural Gas? Why? Gannyholm probably won't let us use any of it.
Oh, Goobinator Jenny is a Toronto Beauty-Queen turned Detroit Lawyer turned Democrat. You've been warned.
I think that anyone who has looked at the waste pits in actively drilled gas and oil sites would want to regulate those practices. Many of the proposed CO2 mitigation techniques smack of perpetual motion schemes. There comes a time when the amount of energy in a system is exceeded by the amount that can be extracted safely. Net energy is the universal yardstick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change is a whole different, though related, problem. I think the common misconception is that all places will get warmer, but many will get colder, drier, or wetter.
The good with gas is that it's less CO2 intensive per BTU than oil or coal are. The bad is that it's harder to transport, so it's best used locally or at least not transport it very far. Another problem as given here is that current efficient methods to loosen it from ground also too often make environmental problems like spoiled wells or other waste. So obviously this waste and pollution has to be minimized, but unless states make it happen, it's not primary concern for those that are acquiring that gas, by any means they can get by, unless supervised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell....looks like the idjits in New York are at it again....wait till we find out how much CO2 the average kid makes and we will have enough evidence to outlaw children....this is getting old and quite laughable. wait till the find out the scientist at the United Nations are half lemur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShooting seriously toxic chemicals deep into the ground, vertically and horizontally, with no real way to control where all of it goes, is environmentally immoral idiocy. This article will imply to those who favor gas drilling that the practice can be made safe. All of the disasters in other parts of the country suggest otherwise, even if you think the NYS DEC regs will protect us more effectively than weaker regs in other areas. The DEC document is full of loopholes and weak language that lets drilling companies off the hook, both in their drilling practices and in their responsibility for disasters when they occur. Anyone who thinks putting thousands of wells in the Fingerlakes area is a good idea is either deeply self-serving and cynical or they don't live here!!!!!!!!! Dick Cheney is responsible for pushing through an amendment that allows these drilling companies to be exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and his former company Halliburton is the dominant company in the industry. When will people wake up?!! The title of the legislation is the SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, and these companies are exempt. Doesn't that mean something to you?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral of my dear friends and I watched a DVD entitled "Gas Lands", which we felt was an awakening to just one aspect of what is killing our world. We are also Bahai and believe we must all do what we can to bring awareness of this (and other problems) to our friends, neighbors, and communities. Please join this effort and awaken your communities to what greed and injustice are doing to our great country and inevitably, the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this