Five experts discussed the dangers and benefits of horizontal natural gas drilling and whether it should be allowed in New York at a panel discussion Monday at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

During the Marcellus Shale and Hydrofracking Panel Discussion, arguments against hydrofracking, the common name for the horizontal drilling method, cited groundwater contamination, toxic and radioactive waste, and habitat destruction as reasons not to allow the process. Others supported hydrofracking for reasons including economic gain, reduced dependence on foreign oil and risk analysis.

Hydrofracking involves drilling a vertical hole into the ground, then drilling out horizontally to force fluids into the hole to release natural gas trapped in the underground shale.

‘I am fundamentally opposed to hydrofracking in the U.S. as well as Onondaga County,’ said Joe Heath, an expert on the panel and the Onondaga Nation’s general counsel.

Explosions and severe contamination to drinking water in Pennsylvania and Texas illustrate the dangers of hydrofracking, Heath said. He also argued that the Department of Environmental Conservation, which would be responsible for monitoring and regulating hydrofracking, is too understaffed to effectively manage the process on a statewide level.

Other panel members were not as adamantly opposed to it, advocating for the allowance of hydrofracking but with regulation.

‘Everyone has a right to clean water and air,’ said David Palmerton, founder of the Palmerton Group Environmental Consulting Services. ‘This should not be us against them – we are all in this together.’

New York is one of the most heavily regulated states when it comes to environmental issues, enabling the possibility of safe hydrofracking, Palmerton said. He said hydrofracking should be allowed because of the widespread dependence on natural gas for heating and because natural gas has a lower carbon footprint than other fossil fuels.

In response to Heath’s concern regarding drinking water contamination, Palmerton said there have been no reputable cases of contamination in the United States.

Palmerton also challenged Heath’s claim that the oil and natural gas industry is excluded from regulations, and he said the Clean Water and Clean Air acts regulate the industry. Both of Palmerton’s statements were met with negative reactions from both the audience and several panel members.

Palmerton responded to claims that hydrofracking companies have not disclosed the chemicals used in the process by showing the audience an 800-page document, which he said contains all of the necessary information.

New York residents should read the document before claiming to be against hydrofracking, said Adam Schultz, an environmental land rights attorney. He said the public uproar about the process is unwarranted because horizontal drilling has been happening for many years in other states.

Schultz compared the process to driving a car. He said car accidents happen often, yet the public doesn’t ask for it to be banned, so hydrofracking should be allowed, despite accidents.

Although there is regulation in place, it is on a well-to-well basis and does not take into account the cumulative effect of statewide hydrofracking on the environment, said Katherine Nadeau, a program associate from the Environmental Advocates of New York. Regulations also don’t take into account proximity to watersheds or endangered species habitats, Nadeau said.

Nadeau said she believes in order for the public to truly be aware of what is happening, the 800-page regulatory document, as well as all other government and industry information, must be accessible to the public.

‘There’s nothing out there that’s all-encompassing,’ Nadeau said. ‘Right now there aren’t a lot of resources.’

jlsiart@syr.edu

Published on March 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm