September 29, 2011
As gas and heating costs in America continue to rise, any major source of fossil fuels naturally gathers significant attention. On Sept. 23 the Levitt Center hosted a panel discussion on hydrofracking, the process of extracting natural gas by fracturing underground rock layers with pressurized fluids. The panel compared the social, economic, and environmental impact of this controversial process.
Although New York sits upon one of the largest northeast deposits of natural gas, hydraulic fracturing, or “hydrofracking,” remains banned throughout the state. Director of the Levitt Center Sustainability Program Peter Cannavo introduced it as a “highly contentious issue on which thoughtful and well-informed people disagree.” The panel included Bruce Selleck, Harold Orville Whitnall Professor of Geology at Colgate University, and Stuart Gruskin, former Executive Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Selleck noted the “tremendous energy need” in the U.S. and pointed out that natural gas plays an indispensable part in our energy usage. While the burning of fossil fuels is a “huge global problem,” Selleck cited the relative growth of fossil versus nuclear and renewable energy sources in America and asserted that “we will need fossil fuels, including natural gas, for the foreseeable future.”
Selleck mentioned the Marcellus Formation, a unit of sedimentary rock found predominantly in eastern North America, and emphasized that the shale under eastern New York contains a wealth of untapped natural gas. The Utica shale, which Selleck claimed to be “highly probable to be developed,” sits deep enough underground that the formative pressure underground could push the gas to the surface after fracturing.
Selleck claimed to present the issue “as I see it as a natural scientist.” He asserted that hydrofracking is not an overly environmentally dangerous process so long as the “well cementing and completion is done correctly,” and concluded that the “economic and social impact is what I worry about most.” He turned it over to Stewart Gruskin to discuss social impact.
The NYSDEC pursued a “think first, drill later” approach to hydrofracking, Gruskin claimed. Describing the controversy as a “perfect intersection of environmental and economic issues,” Gruskin considered both the environmental impact but also observed that many areas of New York, including some directly over the Marcellus shale, desperately needed an economic boost.
The NYSDEC requires all drilling companies of any kind to complete an “environmental impact statement.” This EIS could be modified based on the particular type of drilling involved, and Gruskin stated that the agency sought to carve out a middle ground between absolute environmentalism and unrestrained industry.
Gruskin concluded that “this is not a balancing act. We hope to control the industrial process in a way that will also protect and preserve the environment.” Speaking on the public debate over hydrofracking, Gruskin also noted that both sides were “guilty of exaggeration.” He claimed that the “discussion has become too divisive to help the public” and that, ultimately, “decisions need to be objective and based on science.”