Biblio

Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as hydrofracking, is the process of extracting natural gas from underground rock formations.  And, it’s increasingly becoming a topic for debate in New York State.  Where do New Yorkers stand on the issue?

©istockphoto.com/HHakim

Click Here for Complete May 17, 2011 NYS NY1/YNN-Marist Poll Release and Tables

No Consensus

Photo by Neil Zusman

According to this NY1/YNN-Marist Poll, New Yorkers divide on the issue.  41% oppose hydrofracking while 38% support it.  A notable 21% are unsure.  Similar proportions of registered voters statewide share these views.

Regionally, there’s no majority on either side of the ledger.  47% of those upstate are against hydrofracking while 37% support it.  39% in New York City oppose the process while 35% favor it.  However, in the suburbs of New York City, 46% are for hydrofracking while 36% are against it.

There are partisan differences on this question.  While pluralities of Democrats — 47% — and non-enrolled voters — 46% — oppose the process, nearly half of Republicans — 49%– support it.

“Many New Yorkers have yet to weigh in on this issue,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.  ”The question is what will happen to the public’s opinion about hydrofracking as both sides make their case.”

See:Table: Support for Hydrofracking in NYS

See: Environmental Advocates New York

See: Action Center | Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP America)

See: New York State Assembly Passes Moratorium on Hydrofracking | Governor Vetoes Bill

See: Regulation Is Lax for Water From Gas Wells

See: Catskill Citizens | More Damning Evidence About Fracking

Read the report, Protecting New York’s Air, Land, Water and People: What’s the Hydro-Fracking Rush? (PDF 3.1 MB)

Read Deep Pockets, Deep Drilling, published by Common Cause, July 2010 (PDF)

Read "Affirming Gasland" (PDF) from Damascus Citizens

Supporting materials and other information

County and Town Hydro-Fracking Resolutions

NYS Bills on Environmental Effects of Fracking

Hydro-Fracking in the News

Comments submitted by governments, agencies, and organizations on New York’s proposal to permit Hydro-fracking for natural gas extraction in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.

Photos and related videos of our Hydro-Fracking Day of Action

See this 92 page report criticizing the 2009 New York State DSGEIS:

Fig. 1—In 1947, Stanolind Oil conducted the first experimental fracturing in the Hugoton field located in southwestern Kansas. The treatment utilized napalm (gelled gasoline) and sand from the Arkansas River.

Since Stanolind Oil introduced hydraulic fracturing in 1949, close to 2.5 million fracture treatments have been performed worldwide. Some believe that approximately 60% of all wells drilled today are fractured. Fracture stimulation not only increases the production rate, but it is credited with adding to reserves—9 billion bbl of oil and more than 700 Tscf of gas added since 1949 to US reserves alone—which otherwise would have been uneconomical to develop.

In addition, through accelerating production, net present value of reserves has increased. Fracturing can be traced to the 1860s, when liquid (and later, solidified) nitroglycerin (NG) was used to stimulate shallow, hard rock wells in Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Although extremely hazardous, and often used illegally, NG was spectacularly successful for oil well “shooting.” The object of shooting a well was to break up, or rubblize, the oil-bearing formation to increase both initial flow and ultimate recovery of oil. This same fracturing principle was soon applied with equal effectiveness to water and gas wells.

In the 1930s, the idea of injecting a nonexplosive fluid (acid) into the ground to stimulate a well began to be tried. The “pressure parting” phenomenon was recognized in well-acidizing operations as a means of creating a fracture that would not close completely because of acid etching. This would leave a flow channel to the well and enhance productivity. The phenomenon was confirmed in the field, not only with acid treatments, but also during water injection and squeeze-cementing operations.

But it was not until Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation (Amoco) performed an in-depth study to establish a relationship between observed well performance and treatment pressures that “formation breakdown” during acidizing, water injection, and squeeze cementing became better understood. From this work, Farris conceived the idea of hydraulically fracturing a formation to enhance production from oil and gas wells.

Fig. 2—On 17 March, 1949, Halliburton conducted the first two commercial fracturing treatments in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and Archer County, Texas.

See: Carl T. Montgomery and Michael B. Smith. "Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology." Journal of Petroleum Technology (JPT). 2010. (PDF 2.1 MB)

At the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE), SPE honored nine pioneers of the hydraulic fracturing industry as Legends of Hydraulic Fracturing. Claude E. Cooke Jr., Francis E. Dollarhide, Jacques L. Elbel, C. Robert Fast, Robert R. Hannah, Larry J. Harrington, Thomas K. Perkins, Mike Prats, and H.K. van Poollen were recognized as instrumental in developing new technologies and contributing to the advancement of the field through their roles as researchers, consultants, instructors, and authors of groundbreaking journal articles.

This CD includes more than 150 papers published by these industry legends; it also includes an overview of the history of hydraulic fracturing, along with personal reflections from a number of the Legends and their colleagues.

Hydrafrac (1946)

See: Search for hydrafrac on Google Scholar.

See: Gow, Sandy, and Bonar Alexander Gow. Roughnecks, rock bits and rigs: the evolution of oil well drilling technology in Alberta, 1883-1970. University of Calgary Press, 2005. Web.

This book is a comprehensive study of the evolution of the component aspects of drilling technology in Alberta, from the evolution of power sources and drill bit designs to the composition of drilling muds and the use of fishing tools. Included are explanations of the costs and risks of oil well drilling and of the larger issue of industrial technology -- how it evolves and under what conditions. The author draws extensively from original source material such as interviews, photographs, and appendices from both the Glenbow Archives and the Devon-Leduc Petroleum Hall of Fame and Interpretive Centre.

The Stanolind patent (1946), p. 268, was the first patent issued for hydraulic fracturing. You may preview this page by clicking on the snippet in the link I've provided.

See: George C. Howard. "Well Completion Process." Stanolind Oil and Gas Company. Tulsa, OK. June 29, 1949. U.S. Patent number: 2667224, Filing date: Jun 29, 1949, Issue date: Jan 1954.

See also: Erle P. Halliburton. "Method and Apparatus for Drilling Wells, Such As Oil Wells." New Wilson, OK. U.S. Patent number: 1703234, Filing date: Nov 4, 1920, Issue date: Feb 1929.

See: Google Labs Books Ngram Viewer of the historical usage of the term "hydraulic fracturing". Try the word frack or fracking.

• Threats to water quality
• Inadequate regulation of hydraulic fracturing (including the Halliburton loophole)
• Hydraulic fracturing 101
• More facts, news, other information

Hydraulic fracturing is a common technique used to stimulate the production of oil and natural gas. Typically, fluids are injected underground at high pressures, the formations fracture, and the oil or gas flows more freely out of the formation. Some of the injected fluids remain trapped underground.

A number of these fluids, such as diesel fuel, qualify as hazardous materials and carcinogens, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater resources. Read more details in the Oil and Gas Accontability Project's (OGAP) basic primer on hydraulic fracturing.

Washington, D.C. based environmental advocacy group.  Website includes link to video, Fracking and the Environment: Natural Gas Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Contamination, from Democracy Now! It includes an interview with ProPublica's Abrahm Lustgarten. 9/3/09.

Summary Points:

EPA’s central authority to protect drinking water is drawn from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

The SDWA requires EPA to set legal limits on the levels of certain contaminants in drinking water.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) also requires EPA to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from contamination caused by underground injection.

• §1421 provides minimum standards for underground injection.

• §1422 provides for state primary enforcement authority.

• §1425 provides for alternative showing of effectiveness of program by state Underground Injection Control (UIC) Programs (Oil and Gas wells only).

• §1431 contains provisions to address imminent and substantial endangerment.

Activities not regulated under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Provisions for UIC (Sections 1421, 1422, and 1425).

•  

  Oil and gas production activities.

• Hydraulic fracturing (except use of diesel) per 2005 Energy Policy Act.

• Natural gas storage.

States may choose to regulate these activities.

Surface water discharges are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

See: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) | Safe Drinking Water Act | US EPA

See: Coalbed Methane Development: The Costs and Benefits of an Emerging Energy Resource

See: WATER | Safe Drinking Water Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See: History of Litigation Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing to Produce Coalbed Methane. LEAF (Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation) and The Hydraulic Fracturing Decisions.

1976 video clip of M King Hubbert speaking about world oil depletion and explaining the concept of peak oil.

See article on the Energy Policy Act (2005).

On 9-15-10, attending the EPA meeting on hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, professor of ecology and environmental biology, independent scientist Robert Howarth, Ph.D.,

told a news conference that natural gas extracted from shale is nearly as dirty as coal or perhaps even dirtier in terms of greenhouse gas footprint...

good grief:

...Our public comment to EPA was, in part, as follows:

Based on what we know so far, the EPA should order immediate suspension of high-volume hydrofracking until your study is complete. Let science guide policy. Otherwise we’re conducting a massive human, animal and earth experiment.

The gas will be there; it's not going away. Ideally any further carbon extraction at all should be banned while we accelerate development of sustainables but since that's probably not in the cards politically, it's imperative we at least do everything we can to reduce the harm we are doing to ourselves and our environment by extending our carbon binge in shale gas extraction. As others have mentioned,

I especially urge you to incorporate into your study the research of Prof. Robert Howarth and his team at Cornell on the methane greenhouse footprint that makes shale gas look nearly as dirty as coal if not even worse.

"Who the Heck is Calvin Tillman?"

"...Texas allows public domain seizure for pipelines. The many pipelines feeding the compressors cross private property rendering it unfit for future development.

The cumulative effect of the gas industry on the residents and their property values has caused Calvin, their mayor, to refer to Dish as a Sacrifice Zone.

Pennsylvania based blog. Includes many links and articles.

• About the writer
• Informational Links
• Listening Projects, Video and Stories
• Maps and Images
• More Blogs
• Take Action!

Updated frequently.

Blogroll links to

• Breathing is Political
• Frackland
• Gas Wells Are Not Our Friends

Categories include:

• Drilling in NY (28)
• Drilling in other places (26)
• drilling in pa (167)

See: Dish Mayor Calvin Tilman Testifies at Railroad Commission - Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog.

See: Health Issues Follow Natural Gas Drilling In Texas

Today, Republicans in the House energy committee voted not once, not twice, but three times [all PDFs], against amendments recognizing that climate change is real, despite the broad scientific consensus that "climate change is happening and human beings are a major reason for it." They then unanimously voted [PDF] in favor of the Upton-Inhofe bill to repeal the EPA's scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse pollution.

The 31 Republicans and three Democrats who voted in favor of H.R. 910 have received a grand total of $343,750 from Koch Industries, an average of more than $10,000 each. Freshman Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Koch's special man in Congress, tips the scales at $79,500.

But today's vote is not the first time the Commitee From Koch went public on their science denial.

[Following is] a survey of the members of the committee, fueled by support from Koch Industries and other polluters, and their proclaimed opposition to climate science and climate scientists...

See for yourself. Chairman Upton, Rep. Barton, Rep. Waxman, et al. "Full Committee Markup on "H.R. 910" and "H.J. Res. 37" (Continued)". YouTube. (Running Time - 4:56:37).

See: Comments from Committe on Energy and Commerce Democrats:

Letter in Opposition from Scientists: "The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed5—all without diminishing economic growth."

Letter in Opposition from National Academy of Sciences: "We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts."

Letter in Opposition from Former Senior Military Officers: "America’s dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States. As former senior military officers, we are concerned about Congressional efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority that is critical to reducing our dependence on oil."

Letter in Opposition from Health and Medical Professionals: "Please fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans."

Letter in Opposition from the American Public Health Association: "Cimate change is a public health issue and is one of the greatest threats to human health. Scientists from across the globe have stated in the strongest possible terms that the climate is changing and that human activity is to blame."

Letter in Opposition from Organizations: "This reckless legislation puts America’s health, prosperity, and national security at risk by gutting the Clean Air Act, overturning a decision of the Supreme Court, and dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address life-threatening carbon dioxide and other pollution."

Letter in Opposition from Health Organizations: "This legislation would block the EPA from setting sensible safeguards to protect public health from the effects of air pollution."

Letter in Opposition from the American Lung Association: "A recent bipartisan survey... indicates the overwhelming view of voters: 69 percent think the EPA should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter limits on air pollution; 64 percent feel that Congress should not stop the EPA from updating carbon dioxide emission standards; 69 percent believe that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards."

See: Broder, John M. 2011. House Panel Votes to Strip E.P.A. of Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases. The New York Times, March 10, sec. Science / Environment.

See: Reeve, Elspeth. 2011. House Energy Panel Curbs Federal Power to Fight Climate Change - Politics - The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Wire. March 16.

See: EPA chief faces hostile House GOP

See: Smackdown: climate science vs. climate economics.

See: Climate Co-benefits and Child Mortality Wedges.

See: Snubbing Skeptics Threatens to Intensify Climate War,

Study Says.

See: Climate Zombies Now Run The House.

See: GOP Budget Amendments Would Destroy Health, Economy, Planet

See: EPA chief faces hostile House GOP

See: Energy & Commerce Committee Investigates Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

For one of the more articulate conservative bloggers viewpoints on climate change and its' hermeneutics, read Alberta, Canada's Kevin Libin at ClimateRealists and The National Post.

See: Libin, Kevin. 2011. "Kevin Libin: Environmental activists hide behind a screen of U.S. money." National Post.

For an embarassing account of the dangers of environmentalism, see: Beware The Green Dragon! | Right Wing Watch.

Evidence that Pennsylvania’s Department of Homeland Security is working on behalf of the natural gas industry came to light in early September when internal department bulletins were leaked to an anti-drilling listserve. The department had contracted an Israeli-linked agency to spy on anti-drilling activists.

The story was later leaked to reporters at Pro Publica and the City Paper. These papers’ articles suggested a direct connection between the state agency and the natural gas industry. The exposure fueled outrage from targeted groups.

Gov. Ed Rendell had to retreat. On Sept. 14, he held a press conference to apologize to groups who had been monitored. “Protesting is not a threat, it’s an American right,” said Rendell. He said he was “appalled” and announced that the state would not renew its $125,000 no-bid contract with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response, set to expire in October.

See: Pa. Governor Apologizes for Tracking Enviro Extremists, but Questions Remain - ProPublica

See: Know Your Enemy | John Cole Cartoons

This paper reviews the history of litigation concerning hydraulic fracturing.

LEAF Petitions EPA to Withdraw Primacy—1994

In 1994, an organization known as Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (hereinafter referred to as “LEAF”) petitioned EPA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of the Alabama UIC program.

LEAF alleged that the Alabama program was deficient because it did not regulate hydraulic fracturing activities associated with coalbed methane gas production and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (hereinafter referred to as “SDWA”).

LEAF further alleged that the SDWA required regulation under federal guidelines over hydraulic fracturing operations. In 1995, EPA denied the petition because it determined that hydraulic fracturing did not fall within the definition of "underground injection" under the SDWA.

EPA had concluded that methane gas production wells, which are also used for hydraulic fracturing of the coalbeds, are not required to be regulated under the SDWA because the principal function of these wells is not the underground emplacement of fluids; their principal function is to produce coalbed methane gas.

See: IADC. "Alabama lawsuit poses threat to hydraulic fracturing across U.S." Drilling Contractor. Jan/Feb. 2000.

See: Affirming Gasland

Perched on an Alaskan barrier island, the village of Kivalina faces imminent destruction because of melting sea ice.

Kivalina, Alaska, has sued energy companies over
melting sea ice that threatens the town.
AP Photo/Northwest Arctic Borough

Now, the community's legal effort — which pins the blame on energy companies for the change in climate — is in danger as well. So, too, is a pair of high-profile climate-change suits that may be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, one involving an effort by Connecticut and other states to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the other stemming from Hurricane Katrina.

See: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Case Heads to Supreme Court.

See: SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog.

All three suits rely upon the theory that climate change is a public nuisance and, therefore, state and local governments, as well as individuals who have been harmed, can sue for damages or injunctions. The Obama administration, in a recently filed brief in the Connecticut case, American Electric Power v. Connecticut, is arguing that it may not be prudent for the high court to allow these types of cases to go forward.

If the justices grant review, the stage could be set for reversal of a rare, recent high court victory for environmentalists, the 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. The 5-4 ruling in the Massachusetts case found a special standing to sue for states that brought that first global-warming case to the Supreme Court. The majority also held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.

"If the solicitor general gets the Court to take cert, I would be very confident they're going to undercut Massachusetts v. EPA," said environmental scholar Randall Abate of Florida A&M University College of Law. "The sooner the Court gets to revisit it, the more likely it will be gutted. The trend has been to be more restrictive on standing. This is really making the environmental community nervous and angry."

The Katrina-related case — In re Ned Comer — is also at the Supreme Court but is coming to justices in an unusual fashion — through a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Alaska case — Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Corp. — is undergoing briefing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

"Each case has its legal strong points and each has its legal vulnerabilities," said James May of Widener University School of Law, who has filed amicus briefs on behalf of environmental law professors in the Connecticut and Kivalina cases.

"As a federal litigator for 15 years and a law professor for 20, what I find concerning is the executive branch stepping in front of states and private litigants who are trying to get their day in court. If this was the Bush administration doing this, I think it would be a very divisive political issue."

...The energy companies' case is now stronger because of the EPA's actions and the solicitor general's brief, he said. "I don't know if it gets you there finally. If I was writing plaintiffs' briefs, I would be pounding the table and saying, `If you're telling me this is a political question, the political arm to deal with this is Congress and they have done nothing.' "

Which is exactly what Pawa, who represents three land trusts in the Connecticut case as well as the Kivalina villagers, said. "The solicitor general's brief is not very damaging because it was unpersuasive," Pawa said. "It's just wrong. It tries to repackage the political-question doctrine, which was thoroughly dealt with on its merits by the 2d Circuit, as prudential standing.

"And, there are no federal regulations applicable to existing coal-fired power plants. They haven't even been proposed. There have been some rules proposed for new plants, but no     rules for existing plants, which are at issue in these lawsuits."

In looking at the various iterations of climate-change litigation, the most "evolved" of the three cases is Kivalina, according to Jones and others, and the one that worried most corporate defendants. "It contained a conspiracy count, which is what the plaintiffs' bar hoped would get them money damages," Jones said. "And it has more sympathetic and real plaintiffs than the other cases. Here you have a particular village that is going to be under water."

Kivalina from Cristina Valdivieso + Jon Connor on Vimeo.

Various scientific and government studies report that the right combination of storms could flood the entire village at any time and have recommended relocation at costs varying up to $400 million.

If the Court does not act on Connecticut or Comer, Jones said, "I think Kivalina will go forward. I think that one could end up being the most dangerous of any of them. But getting into court is one thing; proving causation is a very hard row to hoe."

See: Shearer, Christine. "My Journey Into Kivalina v. ExxonMobil et al." Countercurrents. Dec. 1, 2010.

See also: Shearer, Christine. Kivalina: A Climate Change Story. Haymarket Books, 2011. Print.

The Center for Public Integrity’s year-long investigation into the social and environmental impacts of longwall mining centered on hundreds of pages of documents obtained from government sources, such as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; legal agreements between coal companies and property owners; environmental studies; landowner letters; and federal and state records requests.

The library features key documents exemplifying key people or issues in each of the project’s magazine articles.

See: Resources Page:

This list of resources includes the websites of coal companies and citizens groups, as well as studies about and lawsuits over the impacts of longwall mining.

Residents of others states are issuing words of warning for New Yorkers who may soon allow companies to use the "fracking" process to drill for natural gas.

I live and work in Marcellus shale ground zero -- central New York State, just south of the Finger Lakes, one of the biggest and best watersheds in the hemisphere. My home is in economically challenged, mostly rural Tioga County, and I work in Tompkins County. Almost all our neighbors for several miles around have signed gas leases. I participate regularly and actively as a client, colleague, patient, or volunteer with businesses, organizations, and institutions in 19 other New York counties.

I have been economically poor and landless, economically comfortable and landless, comfortable and landed, and poor and landed. I've been rural, suburban, and urban. And I've spent most of my adult life paying state and local taxes in New York State (and a whole lot of national taxes, most of which have gone toward things I do not condone).

Writer Maura Stephens lives in the hills outside Spencer, New York. She wrote this using voice recognition software.

Radio Broadcast. Interview with Mayor Calvin Tilman.

Vast new natural gas fields have opened up thanks to an advanced drilling technique. While natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than coal or petroleum, extracting it is still hard, dirty work.

Some people who live near the massive Barnett Shale gas deposit in north Texas, have complaints. Health and environmental concerns are prompting state regulators to take a closer look.

Includes transcript. 7 min. 18 sec.

See: Dish Mayor Calvin Tilman Testifies at Railroad Commission - Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog.

See: How Should We Do the Mountain?: Who the heck is Calvin Tilman?