F***king New York

            It is increasingly hard to weight the United State’s energy dependence against the benefits of having local energy sources. Independence has always been important to Americans because everyone wants to be able to choose for themselves. But what if choosing energy independence means decreasing standards of living through the use of unhealthy and environmentally damaging alternatives? This has always been an issue, but as returns for exploitation get smaller and smaller people may object more and more. High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking almost certainly is a large enough energy resource to warrant America’s attention, but is it worth it when its externalities are included? This is the choice that the citizens of New York State now face. No Fracking for Now, by Steve Breyman, and Can Fracking Ever Be Done Safely?, by Alison Levy, provide fuel for New York’s crucial debate. This writing piece will also be supplemented by discussion that took place in an Oil Politics class held at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute by students of a variety of majors.

            Thanks to the Marcellus Shale bed that New York State shares with a few other states, there is enough gas trapped underground for energy companies to take notice. RPI’s Oil Politics class identified a number of benefits obtained through Hydrofracking including increased energy security, job creation, royalties to local land owners, reduced green house emissions, the creation of new tax revenues, the high versatility of natural gas, and reduced natural gas prices. The problems involved in Hydrofracking are likely to include water contamination, water scarcity, fuel consumption for trucks that will add emissions, traffic, and degrade roads, air pollution, finite quantities, destabilization of land masses (possible earthquakes), the industrialization of rural areas, and the distribution of new jobs. The physical footprint of this technology is likely downplayed as well.

This conflict has a number of stakeholders involved on both sides of the issue. Elected government officials generally appear to be pro Fracking for a variety of reasons including the creation of new tax revenues. The oil and gas industry, labor unions, many scientists, regulators, and energy security advocates all benefit from allowing Fracking to take place. The landowners and local businesses that get added revenue from either direct or indirect business transactions will appreciate Hydrofracking as well. Those landowners that are left with damaged or unusable land after Fracking takes place will fuel the opposition. Other industries like coal and nuclear power may have to worry about this new source of competition in the coming years. The majority of the rest of the people in opposition to Fracking fall into the category that summarizes the lead opposition: environmentalists. Fracking is a threat to human health and the environment, especially if Fracking regulations allows for too much exploitation that only results in short term gains.

In 2010, Steve Breyman wrote about the advantages to holding off any Fracking attempts in New York. He concluded that the longer New York holds off on Fracking, the higher revenue generated for landowners who get royalties and the state of New York after gas reserves begin to run low elsewhere. He also remarks that: “The longer we wait, the more likely new, safer technologies for hard to recover gas will permit us to bypass it” (Breyman, 2010). Breyman hints that compressed air may be a future safe alternative. On September 19, 2012, Alison Levy observed that: “Governor Andrew Cuomo appears to have hit the pause button on once-imminent plans to frack New York” (2012). This is supposedly the case due to the damage that may be left in the Fracking industries wake. Levy concludes that if Fracking is to be done in New York, the only chance New Yorkers have at a positive experience is a safety trifecta made up of precautionary principles, strict regulations, and committed enforcement (2012). Apparently New York falls short in all three departments. Much of the rest of the article contains information focusing on the Department of Environmental Conversation (DEC) and whether the safety trifecta can be fulfilled. Instead of relying solely on the article I was lucky enough to speak in person with a hydro geologist from the DEC. His remarks on the DEC’s position are helpful in understanding what New York faces when dealing with issues like these. According to this state employee, whether there is a company line on Hydrofracking is irrelevant. The DEC is split by a number of different opinions. Please note that this opinion only provides a single insight to the issue. In the end it will come down to how strictly the industry needs to be regulated. Unfortunately, there is only a very small window in which to do this and the common New Yorker may have less of a say in the outcome. This DEC hydro geologist states that: “By the time regulations ever get released to the public the issuing agency has already made up it mind and policy won’t change much more. Comments and calls for change will appear to be dismissed, but usually this is just because the facts have already been considered and it is easier to justify what’s already been done. The public knows this, but the fact is once regulation has been put in place the battle has pretty much been lost.” This indicates that New Yorker’s only window for change is likely to be closed by the time they get to review it. If voices are to be heard they need to be heard before any plans for regulation are proposed. While this particular individual is against hydraulic fracturing, he says that whatever the result is, “The ideal solution should piss off everyone involved fairly equally because this means a true compromise has been reached.”

            The best way to summarize such a controversial issue may be to look to the future. This is exactly what RPI’s Oil Politics students tried to do. What kind of regulation could possibly allow this energy extraction technique to leave New York unharmed? The United States is now producing so much natural gas that a lot of it is being exported. Is this a good idea for the United State’s Energy independence and security? It is hard to imagine it will help. On top of that, if there aren’t strong regulations, than will the technology ever improve enough to be safe in the long run? Maybe the best question is whether this energy extraction will make that big of a difference far into the future. Natural gas is still a finite resource just like the rest of the available fossil fuels. Is it wise for the United States to put their faith in another energy source destined to run out? Fracking appears to be more of an energy stall then an actual long term solution. As a resident born and bread in the great state of New York, my conscience forces me to say no to Fracking. This is not a NIMBY statement. If I don’t want fracking in my state it is only fair that that burden not extent to people in other states. It is with this understanding that I must also say no to Fracking anywhere in the world. America needs a longer lasting solution, not another stall.

References

Breyman, S. (2010). No hydrofracking for now. Times Union. New Articles. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/No-hydrofracking-for-now-658801.php#src=fb

Levy, A. R. (2012). Can Fracking Ever Be Done Safely? AlterNet. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/fracking/can-fracking-ever-be-done-safely?paging=off