Apr
1
Class 19 – Environmental Inequality – Mohd Sakib
April 1, 2015 | Leave a Comment
“Fracking” has been a hotly debated issue in the news recently, spurring a flurry of opposition from environmental activist groups and support from numerous energy companies and lobbyists. I have heard and read various articles that explains how it can help the economy and energy needs of different countries, but is detrimental to the environment. The BBC News article “What is fracking and why is it controversial?” provides an excellent summary of what fracking is, why it is so controversial and the advantages of the activity to the economy. Usually when I think of oil drilling, I either think of wells and rigs placed in various parts of the ocean or in urban areas out in the west. Interestingly, “fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside.” Just the thought of a well drilling horizontally in a rock layer sounds quite alarming and harmful to the environment around it. Indeed, it is controversial due to the fact that it can cause small earthquakes, and that it injects potentially carcinogenic chemicals to extrapolate the gas and oil. This can pollute the groundwater around the site, and may pollute the drinking water for nearby inhabitants as well.
As for the advantages of fracking, it seems to only benefit the energy companies and the economy of the countries where the reserves of shale gas are located in. Its common news now that Brent crude and WTI prices have significantly reduced due to lower global demand and higher supply. The increased supply is in part caused by the significant increase in oil production by the US, a positive result that can be traced back to fracturing as the US is becoming more energy independent. Unfortunately for the environment, fracking “is estimated to have offered gas security to the US and Canada for about 100 years”, which is an extremely hard offer to refuse. In fact, whenever I discuss energy related topics in my finance and accounting classes, there hardly ever seems to be a mention on the corporate social responsibility or environmental impacts of oil production. There is however, always a discussion on how the US is benefiting and the only harm being done is to large energy companies such as Chevron Corp, Royal Dutch Shell, Halliburton and Baker Hughes regarding low oil prices.
I could also imagine that fracking alleviated economic troubles in different US states, providing yet another incentive to allow hydraulic fracturing activities. It is definitely great news then for NY state inhabitants, environmental and liberal groups that Governor Andrew Cuomo banned fracking in all of New York. As great as fracking could be economically for upstate New York, I definitely do not want NY state’s groundwater to possibly be polluted by dangerous chemicals. Upstate is a very attractive area for this type of oil and gas drilling because the Marcellus Shale runs through a part of NY, along other states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia as well. It is a gas-rich rock that has provided a great amount of energy for profit-hungry energy companies. But at the same time, it is not so surprising that a health study on fracking found it to have “significant public health risks”.
It is because of these kinds of risks that 63% of the Marcellus Shale is fortunately off limits to drilling. Interestingly, Joseph Martens, the state environmental conservation commissioner has stated that “The economic benefits are clearly far lower than originally forecast.” I would definitely want to read more about a cost-benefit analysis on fracking, although I could imagine it would be hard to quantify the expenses related to harming peoples’ lives with fracking pollutants. I actually think it’s crass for Koren Moreau, the executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council, to say that Cuomo made the decision so that he could “align himself with the left (political party)”.
Moreover, it’s just morally horrendous that Moreau says “Our citizens in the Southern Tier have had to watch their neighbors and friends across the border in Pennsylvania thriving economically. It’s like they were a kid in a candy store window, looking through the window, and not able to touch that opportunity.” As much as it is financially beneficial to the state, that statement is just preposterous and gives absolutely no hint of care for the people whose health is signficiantly harmed due to fracking. Hydraulic fracturing seems much more dangerous than some innocent candy store, and needs to be investigated much more than the government and environmental groups are currently doing so. The public needs to obtain facts on what chemicals are actually being used and what the effects are on the human body. We also need to eventually calculate the true costs of fracking, a topic which will definitely be debated as much as the subject of fracking itself.
