Water contamination. Economic Strain. Corporate exploitation.
Cheaper, cleaner alternative fuel. Jobs. Energy independence.
Those are the two conflicting visions of the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing — or hydrofracking — to capture natural gas from rocks underground.
Against hydrofacking, environmental activist Lindsay Speer of Syracuse argues, “All the promises the industry keeps giving of jobs, of energy independence — it’s a lot of public relations spin.”
But hydrofracking supporter Dennis Holbrook, spokesman for Central New York drilling company Norse Energy, disagrees. “The economic benefits in terms of jobs, paying local taxes, supporting all the local communities with various different activities that our enterprises provide support for,” are all real benefits to hydrofracking, said Holbrook.
Hydrofracking extracts natural gas from the ground by using a tube to pump chemical-laden water past the water table and at least a mile into the Earth. Then the gas can be extracted from cracks opened by that water pressure. As the controversy around hydrofracking has grown, Syracuse and Onondaga County have banned the process. New York State has a moratorium on new drilling permits until June 2012. But so far there are no federal restrictions.
As part of the national search for alternative energy, natural gas has joined nuclear power, solar power, wind power, geothermal power and hydropower and bio-fuels as possible ways to cut down on the use of the fossil fuels oil and coal. Locally, hydrofracking has become a volatile issue because of the Marcellus Shale.
The Marcellus Shale extends across the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes regions of New York, west to Ohio and south through West Virginia. It’s one of the world’s largest known natural gas reservoirs. Now, the extensive drilling in the Shale in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, is putting pressure on New York State to drill to stay competitive. For a map of the Marcellus Shale: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/node/290.
Natural gas has become more popular as scientists and environmentalists worry about the potential effect on climate change by greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. Petroleum accounts for 43 percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. Coal makes up 35 percent and natural gas contributes 22 percent.
“The big story is we have to stop burning fossil fuels,” said Donald Siegel, a Syracuse University professor of hydrology and water chemistry. He also has supervised drilling and hydrofracking while employed by the Amerada Hess Corporation and was appointed to a panel evaluating the environmental effects of hydrofracking for the independent, non-profit National Research Council.
Using natural gas may be the next-best alternative to no fossil fuels, said Siegel. “I’m a realist and if we don’t go nuclear, we have to do fossil fuels,” he said. “And if we have to do fossil fuels, we should go natural gas.”
Jobs are among the reasons for drilling that are cited by advocates of hydraulic fracturing.
Norse Energy spokesman, Dennis Holbrook, has lived in the state for almost all of his 59 years. Over time, he said, contractors drilling the wells start training locals for the jobs. In addition, he said, the company has been working with high schools, community colleges and technical schools. “So the skill sets lacking locally can be learned,” said Holbrook.
With skilled labor, said Holbrook, the potential for contamination of the water table from hydrofracking’s chemicals is also lessened.
Environmentalist Lindsay Speer of Syracuse is a board member for the Onondaga Earth Corps, a youth environmental service program. She disputes both those arguments about jobs and contamination. The job-creation potential of hyrdrofacking, she argues, is little and unsustainable. Drilling companies often bring in their own laborers, she said. And when the drilling is done, the jobs go away. “Some people will get rich, but a lot of people will get screwed,” Speer said.
Speer and other environmentalists have focused intensely on water contamination as a reason to ban hydrofracking. As an example, they point to the spill of hydrofracking fluids in Dimock, Pa., in wells drilled by Cabot Oil and Gas. The spill was caused when the concrete casings surrounding the production tube failed.
Those kinds of problems often come from cutting corners, said Jeffery Karson, chair of the geology department at SU. These problems are easily fixed and are noticeable right away, said Karson. But, he said, “There’s always a risk — always.”
The destruction of land around the wells is often the source of many complaints, said Karson. Often, said Karson, complaints have “nothing to do with the actual fracking itself.”
For example, water trucks driving to drilling sites wear out the roads. Drilling camps are set up for laborers, destroying natural ecosystems. The water used for fracking has to be stored and treated. The water absorbs salt and harmful chemicals from deep inside the rock during fracking. If the water is not handled correctly, it can pollute the land.
But if the drilling follows its regulations, Karson said, the environmental effects of hydrofracking are far smaller than coal mining.
“What about people in Appalachia or West Virginia who live around coal mines?” said Karson. “It’s okay for them to live a toxic dump but we don’t want to take the risk of hydrofracking?”
(Callan Gray is a junior majoring in broadcast journalism.)
-30-
