I have recently begun to follow the hydraulic fracturing debate and have been writing a little bit about it on my blog www.enviromentalog.blogspot.com
This weekend as I was reading about White House crashers (seriously?) I was distracted by an article about the split in an upstate community over fracking. Many families in upstate New York own a nice chunk of land. Most were approached by energy companies with a proposition of drilling on their land. Some were outraged and convinced that the negative health effects were not worth the money being offered. Others were lured by the money to be earned and a chance to “rebuild” their community and convince their children to stay in the area. The drilling would be jobs to a community in great need of an economic boost. Some people are being offered $5,000-$6,000 an acre for five years with royalties of 20% for gas that is found. As an unemployed recent grad school grad I can totally understand the lure of money. However, if someone told me they would give me $250,000, but there was a good chance there would be benzene in my drinking water, I am pretty sure I would turn it down. I remember few things from Organic Chemistry but I will never forget the benzene ring. It has 6 carbons and 3 alternating double bonds.Benzene is an especially pernicious toxic substance. Benzene is a known carcinogen which can have effects from both short term and long term exposure. There is no dispute that benzene causes leukemia. In my opinion this is the main reason the DEC cannot allow drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Millions of people depend on that water and we cannot risk benzene contamination!
Another major issue raised in this article is that of “compulsory integration”. This allows gas companies to drill on land they do not have consent for as long as they have most of the leases in the surrounding areas! What???? How can this be legal? You can threaten my drinking water after I explicitly said no. This does not make sense to me. This just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Who will monitor the water? Will it be given a clean bill of health only to find an entire community and possibly New York City residents sick with leukemia in 20 years…? I understand there are always trade offs, but in my book, risk to human health should never be traded.
Print This Page
I have recently begun to follow the hydraulic fracturing debate and have been writing a little bit about it on my blog www.enviromentalog.blogspot.com
This weekend as I was reading about White House crashers (seriously?) I was distracted by an article about the split in an upstate community over fracking. Many families in upstate New York own a nice chunk of land. Most were approached by energy companies with a proposition of drilling on their land. Some were outraged and convinced that the negative health effects were not worth the money being offered. Others were lured by the money to be earned and a chance to “rebuild” their community and convince their children to stay in the area. The drilling would be jobs to a community in great need of an economic boost. Some people are being offered $5,000-$6,000 an acre for five years with royalties of 20% for gas that is found. As an unemployed recent grad school grad I can totally understand the lure of money. However, if someone told me they would give me $250,000, but there was a good chance there would be benzene in my drinking water, I am pretty sure I would turn it down. I remember few things from Organic Chemistry but I will never forget the benzene ring. It has 6 carbons and 3 alternating double bonds.Benzene is an especially pernicious toxic substance. Benzene is a known carcinogen which can have effects from both short term and long term exposure. There is no dispute that benzene causes leukemia. In my opinion this is the main reason the DEC cannot allow drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Millions of people depend on that water and we cannot risk benzene contamination!
Another major issue raised in this article is that of “compulsory integration”. This allows gas companies to drill on land they do not have consent for as long as they have most of the leases in the surrounding areas! What???? How can this be legal? You can threaten my drinking water after I explicitly said no. This does not make sense to me. This just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Who will monitor the water? Will it be given a clean bill of health only to find an entire community and possibly New York City residents sick with leukemia in 20 years…? I understand there are always trade offs, but in my book, risk to human health should never be traded.