« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Drilling in New Jersey? No Fracking Way!

Alt. title: "Fracking? Fuhgeddahboudit!"

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie issued a conditional veto on a measure that would have imposed a permanent ban on hydraulic fracturing — a/k/a “fracking” — in the Garden State. Instead, Christie has suggested a year-long moratorium on the practice.

The debate over fracking in New Jersey is mostly symbolic. New Jersey has exactly zero oil and gas wells. It is, however, the nation’s #7 natural gas consuming state (5% of the nation’s total consumption), ranking ahead of Texas. Since 90% of gas wells are completed with a frac treatment, an anti-fracking New Jersey is a little like an obstetrician who promotes total celibacy among his patients.

Fracking (pdf link) is a treatment process that is applied once a well is drilled. It lasts from a few hours to a few days: sand-laden fluid is pumped downhole in sufficient quantity and pressure to induce cracks or fractures in the rock. The sand holds the cracks open and allows fluid to flow in an otherwise impermeable rock. Horizontally drilled wells, once they’re fracked, can produce shale beds once thought to be of little commercial value. The shale gas drilling boom has been so successful it’s keeping natural gas prices low nationwide.

The gas drilling boom in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale trend has heightened the profile of gas drilling in the Northeast. While Pennsylvania enjoys its economic boom, New York has banned fracking, which is effectively a ban on new gas well drilling.

The Marcellus shale is not commercially viable for natural gas in New Jersey. Where it exists, it is not sufficiently deep to support production. But the deeper Utica shale is more extensive than the Marcellus, and successful results in the Utica in Ohio and Quebec have anti-gas interests in New Jersey worried.

As this map at geology.com shows, the Utica does extend over extreme northwestern New Jersey — but just barely.

Opposition to fracking is so hysterical and so detached from the facts that it is almost funny:

“This is a dismal day for New Jersey,["] Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum said. “Governor Christie had the opportunity to stand up for clean water and to protect present and future generations from the ravages of fracking in New Jersey, instead he opted for a political out, a conditional veto that opens the door to fracking and drilling in New Jersey’s future, including all the poisoning of the water, air, land and people it brings.

“Exxon, Shell, Hess, and other drilling big wigs have been lobbying long and hard to get Christie’s support for fracking, it seems they are succeeding,” van Rossum said. “Fracking for gas ruins drinking water and the environment; the practice isn’t safe and can’t be made safe. The terrible truth is that New Jersey’s 8.8 million people packed into an 8,722 square mile area, the most densely populated state in the nation, have nowhere to go to replace a contaminated water supply.”

Fracking happens at depths thousands of feet below fresh water supplies. Every state has well construction regulations which require multiple barriers to protect fresh water resources. The notion that “the practice isn’t safe and can’t be made safe” are the words of a modern-day Luddite.

Natural gas is nearly the ideal fuel: it’s clean, abundant, affordable and American. Despite the claims of charlatan filmmakers and environmental extremists, it can be developed with minimal impact on the environment and on freshwater supplies.

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.


Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • DerKrieger

    The only these damn eco-Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-energy Luddites will learn, maybe, is if they are cut off from cheap energy and forced, alone, to foot the bill for their “alternative” sources. These people make me sick. This is the same crowd that says the GOP is anti-poor while they drive up the cost of energy that squeezes the poor at the pump, at home, and at the grocery store. Will someone ask Ms. van Rossum about the consequences to the poor, middle class, and even herself when energy prices ate high? These people must be challenged regarding the effects of their policies and not allowed to occupy the moral high ground as protectors of Gaia.

  • DerKrieger

    …is a professional eco-Leftist. Google her.

    • edintexas

      Who would have guessed that? Other than 60+ percent of the populace.

  • eddie74

    The American Energy Companies should now STOP all gas flows to New Jersey under the assujption that possibly a small “puff” of that GAS may have come from a Frackend Gas Well.. As long as New Jersey has the moratorium in place Stop the Gas flow into the State..

  • rickdeckard

    After I finished your article, Steve, I wondered if the eco-crazies found a “link” yet between the quake Tuesday and fracking. Turns out, they lost no time creating said link. Seek and you shall find.

    I think the author clues us in to his lack of objectivity on the topic when he shares this conflation with the reader:

    The correlation has caused concern in other parts of the country, including West Virginia, where residents are asking lawmakers to reconsider the legality of fracking, which can not only cause earthquakes but is overall detrimental to the local ecosystem.

    Something on the order of 1 billion small quakes and tremors occur each century. Nothing new there. Still, we should anticipate a wave of stories about the sudden up-tick in “freak earthquakes” which are “probably due to human activity”.

    And we were taught that “knee-jerk” is a term we save for our republican friends.

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      Linking the Virginia earthquake to hydrofracking is beyond stupid.

      • rickdeckard

        A quick search turned up plate thicknesses in the range of 50 to 250 miles. It seems unlikely that we could shake up the geology much working to a depth of 0.5% to 1.5% of the rock.

        • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

          But the nearest fracking activity to Mineral must be over 100 miles away.

  • Locked and Loaded

    He thinks the DOE and the EPA are going to provide sound science on the matter?

    He could have forced them to override his veto outright. Instead, he hoped to stave them off by subjugating his state’s interests to the feds.

    President Christie, anyone?

    • wonkish1

      So who cares.

      There are more pressing issues to fight the Dem legislature in NJ over.

      • Locked and Loaded

        But he should have let the legislature be the ones to hang it on the citizens of NJ.

        His approach was very weak-willed – and – environmentalists “dismissed the moratorium as meaningless and vowed to work for an over-ride of the veto.”

        He could have drawn a distinction between himself and the radicals. Instead he “share(s) many of the concerns expressed by those who support this legislation.” That is, he is buying in to the hysteria.

      • Scope

        If there was nothing to frack anyway, why did Christie make any deal of it all. He could have just let the issue ride, and not come out issuing a moratorium to at least partially appease the envirowackos with a one year moratorium. All he managed to accomplish was to PO the conservatives who are fighting for drill here drill now policies.

        Exactly Locked and Loaded, besides Coulter, just who are all these “conservatives” that are pushing and begging him to run for the presidency? I saw Coulter on Fox last night in an interview, and she as usual, pushed her hero Christie yet again, while speaking down about Perry, which is another common move by Coulter.

        • wonkish1

          I frankly don’t care what decision he made since they don’t have anything to “frack”.

          I more care about his pensions bill he succeeded in passing, and 2 budgets that cut spending in his state by unbelievable amounts. And the property tax cap he passed. I also care about his teacher evaluation bill he’s trying to pass.

          Those reforms are real and they have consequence.

          This topic doesn’t really have consequence. Especially considering that only those really involved in politics would ever notice. Unlike if this same ruling was given in state like Pennsylvania.

          • gekster

            that he is in a semi-way giving in to the enviro-whackos, and proving that he is not as conservative as some would believe.
            It could also be seen as his “voting present” on the issue.
            And if he were to run for President someday, as some would like,
            it would not be very good for him to bring this issue up, and it appears he has bought into the fear mongering brought about be the anti-fracking group.

          • Scope

            Just making the point that Christie is letting his envirowacko slip show again. Sure he has done some good things in NJ, but, if he has any designs on any future in higher office, he will run into much opposition from Republicans/conservatives for his pro-global warming green positions.

            This was an issue he never had to involve himself in, and could easily have walked away from, as you said yourself, there is no fracking to be done in NJ anyway. By involving himself, and coming out at least in part, with favoritism to the greenies, he put his foot in his mouth, when his mouth didn’t even need to be open. I’ve kept going back to the fact that the largest environmental group in NJ endorsed him for the Governorship. Is it payback?

            It’s great to save money in NJ with where he cut budget items and etc., but, he turned around and put some of those savings into a giant wind mill farm off NJ coasts. So where are the savings?

            Christie said, what do I need to do to prove I am not running for the presidency, commit suicide? He knows he would never make it past the opening gate, and has no intentions in moving all of his policies into conservative territory in order to qualify. He is wise to not waste his, or the voters time.

          • wonkish1

            Now that is passed.

            Yeah if he plans to be president one day down the road this was a mistake. If he doesn’t ever plan on it then I guess oh well.

          • acat

            to other Governor-candidatess, in PA forex, to say “Hero of the right Christie doesn’t support fracking, so neither do I!”

            I can see that as a problem, while at the same time since fracking is the current enviro-boogieman, I can see where Christie has to take a position…

            If Christie comes back in a year and says “fracking is not a problem”, then it all goes away .. but that’s mid-2012 so my guess is he won’t actually say anything until 2013.

            All in all, understandable but disappointing.

            Mew

          • Scope

            When there is nothing to frack for in NJ anyway. That’s the main point. He didn’t need to get involved at all, but, apparently was pushed by the greenies to do so. Wouldn’t he have been better off staying out of it completely?

  • Menlo

    In terms of both general pollution and public water supplies, does the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid not pose both a greater danger and less benefit than this “fracking” process?

    If so, why are these people silent on the issue?