Rodriguez 1
POLICY OPTIONS BRIEF
TO: New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo
FROM: Jesse M. Rodriguez
SUBJECT: Avoiding the Unregulated use of Hydro-Fracking in New York
DATE: September 12, 2014
PROBLEM: Environmental and Health Concerns Associated with Hydro-Fracking
Natural gas has become highly sought after because it has not only aided in lowering the cost of
fuel in the United States,i but it has also provided us with a relatively cleaner source of energy.ii
(This is in comparison to the current heavy reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal, which have
had a negative impact on the world’s environment.) In addition to this, President Obama has
come out in its support citing that it has and will continue to be a great source at creating jobs, he
also sees this as a way for us to not “have to choose between our environment and our
economy.”iii Natural Gas is the most immediate source of alternative energy to fossil fuels like
oil and coal.iv Shale gases are a source of the rapidly growing ‘unconventional’v natural gases.
The Marcellus Shale formation is a large source for natural gas, speculated as being the second
largest in the worldvi; it spreads from Tennessee, through West Virginia, Ohio, and the southern
tier of New York.vii It is here in New York State that many legislators and corporationsviii have
pushed for our state to begin its own mining of these shale gases. It has come to the attention of
the public that you as Governor are making plans to support this move for New York, believing
it is your acknowledgement of New York States rural cities economic need.ix While there is a
great economic need in the various upstate regions of New York, I urge you to take into
consideration both the environmental and health implications that this decision will cause.
The question arises, if natural gas is so beneficial why would so many of New York lobby and
fight against itx? The answer is in its mining process: horizontal high volume hydraulic
fracturing. Horizontal High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing, or better referred to by the media and
the public as hydro-fracking is a method that is used to mine shale gases. Hydro-fracking has
also allowed for the quick development of natural gas, with its’ advancing technology.xi The
gases mined are found in pockets of shale formations far within sedimentary rocks.xii Fracking
uses sand, millions of gallons of water, and a multitude of (dangerous-to-humans) chemicals, in
order to break through the rock to release the natural gas.xiii In blasting millions of gallonsxiv of
water, in a horizontal direction the rocks able to crack and the pockets are revealed allowing the
gases to rise to the surface. In addition to the gases rising to the surface, roughly 30%-70% of the
water used also comes back to the surface.xv This alone would theoretically generate millions of
gallons of toxic waste-water. This method according to Timothy T. Eaton is still “pending
completion of further environmental and public health studies.”xvi The amount of toxic wastewater produced after that is according to NYPIRG’s reports potentially radioactivexvii, the
Rodriguez 2
machinery used in the drilling process that eats up diesel energy, and the chemicals used in the
process pose a serious risk to not only those conducting the drilling but to the rest of New York
State as well. The chemicals reportedly used in the process are diesel fuels, which contain
enzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes.xviii Congress’s Committee on Energy and Commerce
had found that: “The Department of Health and Human Services, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer, and EPA have determined that benzene is a human carcinogen. Chronic
exposure to toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes can damage the central nervous system, liver, and
kidneys.”xix Yet these are only some of the chemicals identified, the “Federal regulators currently
do not have access to a full accounting of the types and quantities of chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing fluids”xx and this is only because “EPA also does not have authority under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to require disclosure of the chemicals injected in hydraulic
fracturing operations.”xxi This is a congressional committee finding these issues with unregulated
hydraulic fracturing; there are too many loopholes for those managing the drilling. These should
be reasons enough as to why New York should avoid fracking, any area planned to be used is
still too close to residential areas. The exposure to these chemicals is not only exclusive to the
potential workers, but to their families who may live in the areas as well.
With the use of drilling close to the watersheds there is a potential risk of the chemicals used in
the fracking process to leak into New Yorks’ natural water supply. This will cause not only a risk
to those who live in proximity to the fracking sites, but to those of us who live here in New York
City as well. All of New York (with the exception of Jamaica, Queensxxii) uses the same natural
water sources, and I stress the word natural because New York holds the reputation of having the
“purists and most bountiful”xxiii water source (arguably) of the world. If the chemicals are
leaking into local drinking wellsxxiv in other places, what will stop it from leaking into New
Yorks’ drinking water? In extreme (and possible exaggerated) cases the water coming out of
sinks in homes within areas that allowed fracking, was flammablexxv; and even if they were
exaggerated why would we want to risk a possible contamination of our drinking water?
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED:
Unregulated hydro fracking comes with too high of a risk for it to be a viable option. New York
should be looking into alternatives to hydro fracking; as opposed to assuming it’s the only
option. With all the advances to further hydro fracking technology, why not advance the process
so that it does not require millions of gallons of water, or use chemicals like enzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes. With a process that poses such a risk to the health of individuals and
the environment why has the federal government allowed it to go unregulated and why has New
York not fought to have regulations put into place. This could be a risk to our naturally beautiful
state, dissuading tourism in the upstate region; and potentially cost the workers more money in
health care, hurting the economy as opposed to helping. New York could also be looking into
other alternative energy sources, like solar power; or creating in strategic places wind mines and
fields.
Rodriguez 3
A.
Government Regulated Hydro Fracking:
If the New York State government sees hydro fracking as the only viable source to mine natural
gases, then it must be regulated and meet protective environmental standards. A congressional
committee has already met to discuss the potential implications of hydro fracking.xxvi They
address that without the advances in high-powered drilling natural gases would not have been
attainable.xxviiYet they also acknowledge that hydro fracking is not without concernxxviii, showing
that even the federal government is aware that this type of drilling could potentially cause harm.
Currently under a variance of laws oil and gas companies do not need to provide the types of
chemicals they use in their fracturing fluids:
Federal regulators currently do not have access to a full accounting of the types and
quantities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, although some states require
disclosure. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act,
approximately 22,000 industrial and federal facilities must report to EPA the quantity of
toxic chemicals they release, store, or transfer, which is then made public in the annual
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Oil and gas exploration and production facilities are exempt
from this reporting requirement.11 EPA also does not have authority under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) to require disclosure of the chemicals injected in hydraulic fracturing
operations.xxix
This alone is a cause for concern, since chemicals they have disclosed are known carcinogens.
The three major companies who are conducting the hydro fracking had been found to be using
diesel in their fluids even after signing a voluntary Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA.
The MOA had no enforcement provisions,xxxso there had been no repercussions if the oil and gas
companies had decided to go back to using diesel in their drilling process. These companies need
to be held responsible for not complying with the EPA’s standards set for them.
As governor of New York, you hold a great amount of influence over whether New York will
partake in mining for natural gases. If that is the case New York should propose to fight for
regulation of these companies, with enforcement repercussions. Together New York legislature
should work with the EPA to come up with a legislative solution (that has enforcement
capabilities) that would limit the use of harmful chemicals in the fracking process. With
government regulation of the chemicals in the hydro fracking process there could hopefully be
less of a health risk than there is right now.
B.
Waterless Fracking:
Another potential alternative drilling process is the newly introduced “Waterless Fracking.” In
2013 TIME magazine recognized it as one of the 25 best innovations of the year.xxxiWaterless
fracking could be the next evolution of hydraulic fracturing; it has been in development since
2012. Like hydro fracking, waterless fracking is the name the media knows it by, its full title is:
pure propane stimulation (PPS) using liquid gas petroleum (LPG). It has been hailed, as “world
changing” by the TIME’s as well.xxxii Pure propane stimulation had a successful field
demonstration within the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. According to ecorpStim the demonstration
confirmed the “feasibility and effectiveness of the pure propane option.”xxxiiiIf Texas can prove
Rodriguez 4
the feasibility of PPS, why can’t New York do the same? In 2013 ecorpStim came out with
another innovation: non-flammable propane.xxxiv This process forgoes the use of water, and
instead uses liquid propane or LPG. Waterless fracking not only eliminates the use of millions of
gallons of water, but also the use of the harmful and dangerous chemicals used in hydro
fracking.xxxvThis itself turns fracking into a more “clean” process to extract the natural gases
trapped within shale. New York would still be able to mine the unconventional natural gases,
without as heavy a risk to the health of individuals and to the environment.
Not only has Texas been experimenting with PPS but also Ohioxxxvi and France.xxxviiThe study
conducted in Ohio found water based fracking (hydro fracking) to be “less profitable” since the
water used can potentially breakdown some key essentials in the natural gas; basically saying
that the substances do not mix well together when they come in contact with each other. Yet with
using LPG the substances can mix well together naturally, and LPG does not cause a break down
of essential elements. The LPG will come back to the surface with the natural gas, whereas when
water comes back to the surface it turns into a toxic mixture that has no proper method of
disposal.xxxviii The French government has completely banned the use of hydro fracking, and has
begun to use PPS/LPG that is being continuously developed by ecorpStim.xxxix If New York is to
move forward with natural gas extraction this is a more environmentally sound method with
cleaner, and high profit results.
C.
Solar power:
While the past two options can be seen as being more immediate to the discussion at hand, there
are other clean energy alternatives to be used. One of which is use of solar power. The use of
solar power is not new to this period in history; societies for centuries have been using solar
power in one capacity of another.xl Yet it was in the 1960s and 70s that solar power would be
first harnessed to power electricity in different capacities; from using a satellite solar power
station to installing a cadmium sulfide (CdS) photovoltaic system to operate an educational
television in a school in Niger.xli Solar power has proven to be an effective alternative energy
source. Currently solar energy acts as a supplement to electric energy sources today, and an
effective one at that. Solar powered energy is a renewable, clean energy source that uses
mirrored plates to transmit solar cells into watts to power electricity. According to one study
done in China solar energy is ‘outstanding: “The solar cell power generation, which using the
"photovoltaic effect" principle to transform solar energy to electrical power, it’s outstanding in
new energy.”xlii Solar power is an alternative energy source that is being looked into all across
the world, and one that no matter its solar cell generation method, is a clean healthy to the
environment one.
Its upswing had slowed down due to unforeseen circumstances like the financial crisis, and the
introduction to cheap natural gases.xliii Yet the same articlexliv that cites why its upswing has been
slowed also makes the argument why its potential has not been undermined.xlv New York could
become a part of this new mass use of solar energy. By giving better tax incentives to both
businesses and private homes the transition from non-renewable energy to an efficient renewable
Rodriguez 5
source could be smoother than it already is. Instead of focusing New York’s attention to
approving hydro fracking, we should become apart of this change in energy harvesting methods.
Conclusion:
If we are to move forward with the mining shale gases, there will need to be strong regulation
that companies will do what is right environmentally. Those who will conduct the drilling also
need to be made aware of all the human concerns that have come up. Other options to hydraulic
fracturing need to be discussed, because fracking is not the best option we can come up with. It is
recognized that there is a great benefit to have access to natural gases, with its abundance and its
proof of creating a cleaner carbon footprint. Let us take steps forward in legislation concerning
its mining process, and not allow fracking to potentially destroy our own environment here in
New York. Governor, this is our state and its health and environment are at stake. An even better
option would be moving towards renewable energy sources like solar energy. The Green Gazette
puts it beautifully: “We need to stop destroying public air and water in the interest of oil and gas
company profits, and instead seek energy solutions that will provide a renewable future.”xlvi I
would like to thank you for taking the time to read through this memorandum. I look forward to
hearing from you and hope to work with you on this issue. Together we can hope to come to a
solution that is economical, and environmentally sound.
Danny Hakim, “Cuomo Proposal Would Restrict Gas Drilling to a Struggling Area,” The New York Times (2012).
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/nyregion/hydrofracking-under-cuomo-plan-would-be-restricted-to-a-fewcounties.html].
ii
Timothy T. Eaton, “Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and
New York City water supply,” Science of Total Environment, 461-462 (2013): 159, http://web.a.ebscohost.com.
remote.baruch.cuny.edu/ehost/command/detail?sid=e7b87bff-67f7-408b-bb77-02f051833e52%40sessionmgr4005
&vid=1&hid=4109
iii
Hakim.
iv
Eaton, 159.
v
“Shale Gas and Other Unconventional Sources of Natural Gas,” Union of Concerned Scientists, last modified June
19, 2014, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/shale-gasunconventional-sources-natural-gas.html
vi
Goldstein, Bernard D., Kriesky, Jillian, Pavliakova, Barbara, “Missing from the Table: Role of the Environmental
Public Health Community in Governmental Advisory Commissions Related to Marcellus Shale Drilling,”
Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, no. 4 (2012): 483.
vii
“Natural Gas Drilling,” NYPRIG, http://www.nypirg.org/enviro/toxics/drilling/drilling.html
viii
Edward J. Markey and Henry A. Waxman, “Examining the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing”
(Memorandum, Washington D.C., 2010), 1. The three largest corporations using fracking are Halliburton, BJ
Services, and Schlumberger.
ix
Hakim.
x
Mireya Navarro, “New York Judge Rules Town Can Ban Gas Hydrofracking,” The New York Times (2012).
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/nyregion/town-can-ban-hydrofracking-ny-judge-rules.html?_r=0]
xi
Goldstein, 483.
xii
Benjamin K. Sovacool, “Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing
(fracking),” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37 (2014): 249-264.
xiii
Hakim.
xiv
Kara Cusolito, “The Next Drilling Disaster?” The Nation, 290, no. 24 (2010): 18-21.
xv
Goldstein, 483.
xvi
Eaton, 159.
i
Rodriguez 6
xvii
NYPIRG.
Markey, 5.
xix
Ibid, 5.
xx
Ibid, 4.
xxi
Ibid, 4.
xxii
“New York City Water Supply,” Earth Science Educational Resource Center of Stony Brooke University, last
modified June 21, 2013, http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/cen514/info/nyc/watersupply.html
xxiii
Ibid.
xxiv
Markey, 1.
xxv
Debbie Kwiatoski, “It’s all about the water,” Hudson Valley Business Journal, April 5, 2010.
xxvi
Markey.
xxvii
Ibid, 4.
xxviii
Ibid, 4.
xxix
Ibid, 4.
xxx
Ibid, 5.
xxxi
"ecorpStim welcomes the recognition by TIME magazine of waterless fracking as one of the 25 best innovations
of the year," PR Newswire US, November 22, 2012.
xxxii
Ibid.
xxxiii
Ibid
xxxiv
Ibid.
xxxv
Ibid.
xxxvi
Anthony Brino, “Waterless fracking technique makes its debut in Ohio,” Midwest Energy News, May 15, 2012,
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/05/15/waterless-fracking-technique-makes-its-debut-in-ohio/
xxxvii
"French minister calls for fracking rethink," TCE: The Chemical Engineer no. 873 (March 2014): 51.
xxxviii
Brino.
xxxix
Ibid.
xl
“The History of Solar,” US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed October 3,
2014 [https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf]
xli
Ibid, 5.
xlii
GUO Hui-dong, "The Development research of solar energy power supply devices," Applied Mechanics &
Materials no. 556-562 (July 8, 2014): 1568-1572.
xliii
David Frankel, Kenneth Ostrowski, and Dickon Pinner. "The disruptive potential of solar power." Mckinsey
Quarterly no. 2 (June 2014): 50-55.
xliv
Ibid.
xlv
Ibid.
xlvi
"The Case for a Ban on Fracking," Mother Earth News, no. 250 (2012): 16.
xviii
Work Cited:
Barringer, Felicity. “Spread of Hydrofracking Could Strain Water Resources in West, Study Finds.” The New York
Times, May 2, 2013.
Brino, Anthony. “Waterless fracking technique makes its debut in Ohio.” Midwest Energy News, May 15, 2012.
[http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/05/15/waterless-fracking-technique-makes-its-debut-in-ohio/]
Cusolito, Kara. “The Next Drilling Disaster?” The Nation, 290, no. 24 (2010): 18-21.
Eaton, Timothy T. “Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New
York City water supply.” Science of Total Environment, 461-462 (2013): 159,
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/ehost/command/detail?sid=e7b87bff-67f7-408b-bb7702f051833e52%40sessionmgr4005&vid=1&hid=4109
"ecorpStim welcomes the recognition by TIME magazine of waterless fracking as one of the 25 best innovations of
the year." PR Newswire US, November 22, 2013.
Rodriguez 7
Frankel, David, Kenneth Ostrowski, and Dickon Pinner. "The disruptive potential of solar power." Mckinsey
Quarterly no. 2 (June 2014): 50-55
"French minister calls for fracking rethink." TCE: The Chemical Engineer no. 873 (March 2014): 51.
Goldstein, Bernard D., Kriesky, Jillian, Pavliakova, Barbara. “Missing from the Table: Role of the Environmental
Public Health Community in Governmental Advisory Commissions Related to Marcellus Shale Drilling.”
Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, no. 4 (2012): 483-486.
GUO Hui-dong. "The Development research of solar energy power supply devices." Applied Mechanics &
Materials no. 556-562 (July 8, 2014): 1568-1572.
Hakim, Danny. “Cuomo Proposal Would Restrict Gas Drilling to a Struggling Area.” The New York Times (2012).
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/nyregion/hydrofracking-under-cuomo-plan-would-be-restricted-to-afew-counties.html]
Kwiatoski, Debbie. “It’s all about the water.” Hudson Valley Business Journal, April 5, 2010.
Markey, Edward J. and Waxman, Henry A. “Examining the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing”
Memorandum, Washington D.C., 2010.
Margeta, J., and B. Đurin. "Hydrological and hydro-energy indicators of the hybrid energy system using solar and
pump storage hydroelectric plant." International Journal Of Sustainable Energy 33, no. 4 (August 2014):
827-841.
“Natural Gas Drilling.” NYPRIG, http://www.nypirg.org/enviro/toxics/drilling/drilling.html
Navarro, Mireya. “New York Judge Rules Town Can Ban Gas Hydrofracking.” The New York Times (2012).
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/nyregion/town-can-ban-hydrofracking-ny-judge-rules.html?_r=0]
“New York City Water Supply.” Earth Science Educational Resource Center of Stony Brooke University, last
modified June 21, 2013, http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/cen514/info/nyc/watersupply.html
Sovacool, Benjamin K. “Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing
(fracking).” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37 (2014): 249-264.
“Shale Gas and Other Unconventional Sources of Natural Gas.” Union of Concerned Scientists, last modified June
19, 2014, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/shale-gasunconventional-sources-natural-gas.html
"The Case for a Ban on Fracking." Mother Earth News no. 250 (February 2012): 16.
“The History of Solar.” US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Accessed October 3,
2014. [https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf]