192
occur from projected Marcellus Shale development. Based on rigorous analyses, the
SGEIS also provided detailed recommendations for mitigation measures and site
monitoring that could be implemented to avoid any potential problems. This did not
resolve the debate, but actually intensified it. Opposition groups in New York City
and elsewhere in the state began pressuring the government to ban fracking no matter what the findings of the SGEIS recommended.
In 2014, after several more years of contentious debates, the governor of
New York disregarded the recommendations of his own environmental agency and
imposed a ban on fracking shale gas wells, citing unacceptable environmental risk
(Kaplan 2014). This is a classic example of a reaction to a perceived risk, rather than
an actual risk (the actual risks laid out in the SGEIS were minimal). It has been
estimated that the ultimate cost of this ban to the state will be $1.4 billion in lost tax
revenues and up to 90,000 direct and indirect jobs (Considine et al. 2011). New York
presently imports 95 percent of its natural gas from out of state.
Other states watched this drama unfold with great interest. Fracking bans have
been discussed but not implemented in Colorado and California. With little evidence of significant, widespread environmental risk, and concerns about substantial
job and tax revenue losses, most states with moderate to large oil and gas industries
have decided to allow fracking.
The New York ban taught the O&G industry that obtaining a “social license” for
the development of shale gas and other resources is critical. Properly addressing
environmental concerns up front is necessary for communities to be able to weigh
the risks and benefits of allowing hydrocarbon development. This is especially
important in areas without a history of oil and gas production, because the continuous nature of shale resources allows for development in previously unexplored locations where people are often unaware of the size of the industry. When landowners
in non-traditional O&G locations sign a shale lease, they may not realize that they
have just given permission for the construction of a five acre pad to accommodate a
gigantic drill rig that will tower some 150 feet (45 m) above their rooftop. Waking
up one morning and finding that in the back yard has resulted in shock at the enormous scale of the industry (refer back to Fig. 7.1). Many who were on the fence
about fracking ended up opposing it once they actually experienced the reality,
decrying the “industrialization” of rural America.
Have the existing fracking bans made a critical difference to the environment? It
is hard to say. In Europe, fracking is banned in Germany while neighboring Denmark
allows it as the Danes actively pursue gas production from the Alum Shale (Soeder
and Borglum 2019). The country enforces strict standards of well site cleanliness
and chemical containment, and the people and ecosystems of Denmark seem to be
doing just as well as the Germans next door.
Investigations by the U.S. Geological Survey of groundwater and surface water
along the New York-Pennsylvania state line 5 years after the New York ban was
instituted found no significant differences in water quality between the two states
(McMahon et al. 2019). One sample out of the 50 collected contained methane gas
from a shallow formation that might have been mobilized by fracking activities.
This remains uncertain because the migration of natural gas in shallow groundwater
10 Mitigation and Remediation
occur from projected Marcellus Shale development. Based on rigorous analyses, the
SGEIS also provided detailed recommendations for mitigation measures and site
monitoring that could be implemented to avoid any potential problems. This did not
resolve the debate, but actually intensified it. Opposition groups in New York City
and elsewhere in the state began pressuring the government to ban fracking no matter what the findings of the SGEIS recommended.
In 2014, after several more years of contentious debates, the governor of
New York disregarded the recommendations of his own environmental agency and
imposed a ban on fracking shale gas wells, citing unacceptable environmental risk
(Kaplan 2014). This is a classic example of a reaction to a perceived risk, rather than
an actual risk (the actual risks laid out in the SGEIS were minimal). It has been
estimated that the ultimate cost of this ban to the state will be $1.4 billion in lost tax
revenues and up to 90,000 direct and indirect jobs (Considine et al. 2011). New York
presently imports 95 percent of its natural gas from out of state.
Other states watched this drama unfold with great interest. Fracking bans have
been discussed but not implemented in Colorado and California. With little evidence of significant, widespread environmental risk, and concerns about substantial
job and tax revenue losses, most states with moderate to large oil and gas industries
have decided to allow fracking.
The New York ban taught the O&G industry that obtaining a “social license” for
the development of shale gas and other resources is critical. Properly addressing
environmental concerns up front is necessary for communities to be able to weigh
the risks and benefits of allowing hydrocarbon development. This is especially
important in areas without a history of oil and gas production, because the continuous nature of shale resources allows for development in previously unexplored locations where people are often unaware of the size of the industry. When landowners
in non-traditional O&G locations sign a shale lease, they may not realize that they
have just given permission for the construction of a five acre pad to accommodate a
gigantic drill rig that will tower some 150 feet (45 m) above their rooftop. Waking
up one morning and finding that in the back yard has resulted in shock at the enormous scale of the industry (refer back to Fig. 7.1). Many who were on the fence
about fracking ended up opposing it once they actually experienced the reality,
decrying the “industrialization” of rural America.
Have the existing fracking bans made a critical difference to the environment? It
is hard to say. In Europe, fracking is banned in Germany while neighboring Denmark
allows it as the Danes actively pursue gas production from the Alum Shale (Soeder
and Borglum 2019). The country enforces strict standards of well site cleanliness
and chemical containment, and the people and ecosystems of Denmark seem to be
doing just as well as the Germans next door.
Investigations by the U.S. Geological Survey of groundwater and surface water
along the New York-Pennsylvania state line 5 years after the New York ban was
instituted found no significant differences in water quality between the two states
(McMahon et al. 2019). One sample out of the 50 collected contained methane gas
from a shallow formation that might have been mobilized by fracking activities.
This remains uncertain because the migration of natural gas in shallow groundwater
10 Mitigation and Remediation