helinski+debate+1



Nicholas Helinski Natural Gas Expansion Debate Paper #1 Word Count: 1660

With the world on the brink of an energy crisis, exploration is turning to all methods of energy wither it be investing in futuristic alternatives or relying on methods that have been successful in the past. Natural gas is one that has been shown to be effective and is currently in consideration for drastic future investments in order to relieve the United States from its crippling dependency on crude oil. Depending on the outcome of the natural gas investments, there are distinct group of individuals who will be faced with alterations in their daily lives. The first area of concern is the safety that is involved with the drilling and hydro-fracking of natural gas. Not only does this affect the individuals who lease their lands to the gas companies, but the method in which the natural gas is gathered can direct effect the surrounding wild and plant life, as well as those who depend on water supplies that have roots in the areas where drilling and hydro-fracking is occurring. Pushing for safer methods would force stricter regulations on the companies which may in turn experience higher operational cost to ensure that machinery and methods are running correctly and under code. Having an exponential expansion into the natural gas sector could affect the job markets in the energy field drastically in a positive as well as negative manner. Not only is this a sensitive topic for US citizens, but being the pioneers into the natural gas field as a primary source of energy would allow for the world to follow our footsteps with gas being available on almost every continent.

As advertised within the press release from the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the natural gas that is available within New York State is a diamond in the rough that is waiting to be taken advantage of. As being explored within neighboring Pennsylvania and close by West Virginia, natural gas is a source of economic stimulation that New York could prosper from. As shown by the impact in Pennsylvania, hydro-fracking has allowed for the creation of 98,000 jobs as well as pumped 14 billion dollars into the state’s economy. Over the next ten years it is projected to provide an additional 212,000 new jobs and generated 1.8 billion dollars in tax revenues. These impressive numbers are believed to be possible in New York State as well which is why it is argued that ban on hydro-fracking should be lifted. With great possibilities for economic growth directly linked to natural gas drilling, the safety of the process is the only concern left. As quoted from John Hanger who is the Department of Environmental Protection secretary “//Here’s the reality: // //every drop of tap water that was publicly treated is required to meet the safe drinking water standard.” With safety concerns answered by the EPA and economic stimulation available within the state, the article asks, “ // With 900,000 New Yorkers out of work, and the state dealing with a $9 billion gap in its budget, the question remains: What are leaders in Albany waiting for?”

Being a press release from the Marcellus Shale Coalition it is apparent that nothing but positive support for the expansion of natural gas drilling. The information this is presented may be true about the potential economic growth, but it does not mention the amount of jobs and revenues that will be lost from agricultural communities who are effected by possible water contaminations in surrounding areas. Although the secretary from the DEP clears the risk or hyrdro-fracking liquids in his statement, there are plenty of contrary studies that beg to differ. The support within this article relies heavily on quotations from varying sources and not as many scientific studies or statistics which makes the statements not as factually sound being able to be supported through biased opinions. This press release comes off as more of a sales pitch attempting to gain support rather than a factual document expressing information.

“Not so Fast, Natural Gas” released by the Food and Water Watch, is a very detailed overview of the dangers that are currently involved with the natural gas drilling and fracking process. This article mainly focuses around the link with natural gas and the water supplies, yet touches a broad range of topics. The hydro-fracturing process that is involved within natural gas drilling provides several areas of risk and concern to the environment and local communities. Beginning with the amount of water that is required, the risk of depletion of community water supplies is a large risk. With a single well in the Barnett Shale requiring 3.8 million gallons of water the fact that “56 percent comes from groundwater, 43 percent comes from surface water and the remaining amount, less than 1 percent is reused or recycled water”, the concern of depleting community water supplies is apparent. In addition the chemicals injected into the water mixture and then injected into the ground are another area of concern and a large portion of the document’s argument. The document explores 63 chemicals found in fracking products which were associated with skin, eye, sensory organ, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and liver conditions as well as also being linked to alterations in brain functionality, weight, teeth and bone depletion and death. The “produced” water is also mentioned as the risk of having wastewater contaminating drinking water supplies for much of metropolitan areas. Moving away from the practice of fracking itself, the governmental failures within the gas industry are discussed as it talks about the loopholes that were uncovered in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Well summarized the article states that the Marcellus Shale “could supply 15 years’ worth of energy, but how long would it take local communities and their watershed to recover?”

Supported with a plethora of information and facts that provide great detail, this article provides has a solid argument in defining its position on natural gas drilling. Some of the areas are much more detailed with information which definitely shows the strengths of the argument presented. There are many results of studies that examine the containments of waters that resurface from fracturing, but not too much detailed about the political aspects of the natural gas debate. The articles goes into explanation of the 2005 Energy bill and the controversy that surrounds the actions of Dick Cheney, but does not explore any other governmental actions that have been taken in either a positive or negative manner. It also briefly touches upon local and state activism against natural gas drilling but does not provide anywhere near as much data and statistics that are provided in the scientific areas. I do not know if this is due to the lack of information within this area or if there is not as much supporting evidence for this argument. The research and message presented by this article is clearly against the expansion of natural gas and makes this view clear through the continual negative remarks, not leaving any room for positive perspectives. Many of the areas that lack data support their information with facts from several years back and do not have much currently dated information or break through.

The third article researched provided more of a neutral opinion on the natural gas topic. Having information that supported both sides of the argument, it was well presented allowing the reader to see both sides next to one another to allow for the formation of individual opinions. The largest argument within this document is the treatment of the waste or “produced” water which is feared to be providing huge risks to mankind and the environment. There are quotations from the DEP that state the treatment facilities are unable to handle and properly treat all of the chemicals that are found within these drilling waters. In contrary to these statements, there are also excerpts from reports from New York State as well as Pennsylvania which conclude that the drilling waste waters are not a threat. Although there are no sources from where these claims come from, having the statements juxtaposition to one another does not allow one side to appear dominant. There are statements provided from energy company officers that state “levels of radioactivity pose no threat to the public or workers safety and are more of a public perception issue than real human threats.” This statement brings much information presented previously into question and places the severity and context under examination. The concerning problem addressed in this article is the topic of applying tighter drilling regulations on companies which one inspector from the DEP replied with “If we’re too hard on them, the companies might just stop reporting their mistakes.” There are many challenging arguments to what has been said previously and many alternative views provided.

Through the research done on this topic I am securely taking the support of the halting of natural gas expansion. Although I believe that natural gas can provide an abundant amount of energy and be very successful in relieving the US of its oil dependency, the technology is not available for this resource to be explored properly and responsibly. At first glance natural gas seems to be an easy solution to the energy crisis but understanding the fine details involved in the process of drilling quickly outweighs the benefits. I believe that investment should not be put into expanding the current state of natural gas drilling but rather into the method which it is conducted. If company is willing to spend time and money engineering a method to drill safely and without harming the environment or water supplies, then and only then do I believe that it should be considered a reliable and valuable area for expansion. While private companies invest in application and methodology, government agencies can explore methods of properly monitoring and regulating drill sites in order to ensure that these companies are operating at regulated safety and environmental standards. If this is achievable I believe that natural gas may become one of the “clean” energy forms of the future.

 Works Cited Marcellus Shale Coalition. Newsroom. What Are You Waiting For, New York? Marcellus Shale Coalition. 13 Jan. 2011. Web. 26 Mar. 2011. . "Not so Fast, Natural Gas: Why Accelerating Risky Drilling Threatens America's Water." Food and Water Watch (2010). Food & Water Watch. Food & Water Watch, Oct. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2011. . Urbina, Ian. "Politicians, Environmentalists Support Natural Gas - Longview News-Journal: Local Business." Longview News-Journal. 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. .