Report Outlines Rewards and Risks of
Upstate Natural Gas Drilling
Andrew Estes 2/15/13
Earth Science
Ms. Davies- C Even
Navarro, Mireya. "Report Outlines Rewards
and Risks of Upstate Natural Gas Drilling."The New York Times. The
New York Times, 08 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.
With the price of natural gas
increasing exponentially, it only makes sense for the United States to
capitalize on these plentiful natural gas deposits scattered around upstate New
York. Extracting this gas has many benefits, some of
these benefits include 37,000 new jobs for Americans, an economic turn around
for some of the poorer county’s upstate. Even though in the immediate scheme of
things the new jobs and money are appealing to some, most see past this and
recognize the consequences of extracting the gas. These negative affects
include an influx in workers moving in to these rural areas; this would cause
housing prices to go up. Also industrial activity, heavy truck traffic, and
water contamination are all negative affects of natural gas extraction. The
method that would be used to extract the gas is called hydrofracking. This uses
millions of gallons of water, laced with a cocktail of chemicals, to fracture
shale and release gas. This uses a lot more water and chemicals than the
original method of drilling. And, it is also a lot more environmentally
dangerous; all these new chemicals being forced into the landscape can
eventually reach a well, or water source and completely contaminate it. If this
toxic water is consumed it could lead to death. Even though the state is
currently banning hydrofracking in areas with major aquifers, no matter where
they drill in upstate New York it would render tens of thousands of wells
undrinkable. Currently there is a lot of debate around this subject of
hydrofracking. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo stated that he would approve the process of
extracting the gas only if it was “environmentally sensitive and safe.” Joseph
Martens, who is the environmental conservation commissioner for New York stated,
“It makes sense to move forward with them together and hold simultaneous public
comment periods and hearings.” Even with all these opinions, the citizens of
New York are still undecided on this issue. With the two valid arguments being,
hydrofracking is too environmentally dangerous and could have adverse affects
on New York, with the opposition saying this is the economic turn around that
upstate New York has been searching for, it will provide tens of thousands of
jobs, as well as helping small businesses that are already closing down.
Because of the possible adverse
affects on the environment, and the possible transformation of upstate New York
from a rural quiet area to a busy industrial hotspot. Hydrofracking directly
affects us as New Yorkers. If the government dose allow for the extraction of natural
gas it could lead to an environmental catastrophe, or in contrast it could
cause upstate New York to becoming a new busy industrial area. People that are
currently living on top of the major deposits are affected for reasons such as
a new drastic change in population, and the transformation from quiet county’s,
to noisy and hectic industrial parks. Even people living far away from the
natural gas deposits could still be affected. New York taxes will rise in order
to pay for this huge project, and families that you may be in touch with could
possibly relocate due to the thousands of available jobs. If you live close
enough to the site you may now have to prepare for a disaster such as mass
contamination of the underground aquifers, even though this is extremely
unlikely, because hydrofracking is a new method it could still go wrong very
easily. Because my family owns property upstate on top of a major deposit It is
possible that I will directly see the advantages and disadvantages of fracking.
Overall I believe that this article
was well written, and assembled. However I would have liked it if the article
would have gone further in depth with some particular subjects, such as the
actually process of hydraulic fracturing. I would have liked to known in
greater detail the procedure of this method. It also would have been helpful to
be informed of the views of the people who are living where the drilling is
supposed to take place, it would be interesting to see if they believe that the
increase in industry would be good for the upstate area. Furthermore the author
of the article did a good job at showing both sides of the argument without any
bias. And, the article was interesting the entire way through, I now feel
compelled to follow this debate until it is finally resolved. Overall I enjoyed
reading this article and learning about how hydrofracking could affect us.
Andrew, I thought that your current event was very well written. I thought that you gave a good description of the article and what was occurring in upstate New York. I have always heard the term “fracking” but I never knew what it was used for. I think it is a very controversial subject because while you read it you ask yourself does the positive impact of all of these jobs outweigh the negative impact of water contamination? I also found it interesting that the gas could actually contaminate the water and kill many people. I think that hydrofracking in upstate New York may be too risky and too much of a drastic change for the rural counties. I also didn’t know how obtaining oil could create 37,000 new jobs. In this economy new jobs are really important and it is sad that in poorer upstate counties this type of thing is tempting people, but has such large risks. One question I have is there anyway to quarantine the oil to stop it from contaminating the water supply? I also didn’t know how much of the wells would be effected in your report you said that “would render tens of thousands of wells undrinkable” which I found very shocking. Whichever the government decides will have a huge impact on others. This is a really important article to read because these decisions that the government makes really effects the lives of thousand in upstate New York and I agree that the article should have gotten some of their opinions. Another thing I liked about your report was the structure of your paragraphs was very complete. However, one thing that I would do to make your report even better is jut check it for grammar mistakes, otherwise it was really good. I really enjoyed reading this current event report because it keeps us aware of what is happening in our own state.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I liked your current event because of its unbiased presentation of both sides of the issue of hydrofracking. You detailed both the benefits of it, including economic benefits, job creation, and the obvious benefit of gaining the fuel, as well as the cons, primarily the damage inflicted on the environment by hydrofracking. I also was impressed by your description of the process of hydrofracking, which was thorough enough to inform the reader on the issue while avoiding unnecessary excessive description of the details. The description of the points of both sides of the issue allows the reader to come to their own conclusion. Your current event has inclined me to agree with the many vocal protestors of hydrofracking in upstate New York that the damage to the environment exceeds the benefits of hydrofracking. I was interested by the concerted effort that you clearly made to connect the issue of hydrofracking to Bronxville students. I visit upstate New York often, and have seen many signs protesting fracking without actually ever finding out what it is. This made your description of the impact that hydrofracking could have on people who own property on or have family near hydrofracking sites the most interesting part of your current event. Another interesting part of this current event was the presentation of the opinions of New York State government officials. This helped to show what direction hydrofracking is going in and what the biggest issues with it are. The main suggestion I have for this current event is that at times errors in grammar disrupted the flow of the current event and made it less cohesive. Overall, I liked this current event because it explained an interesting issue that affects my life.
ReplyDeleteI thought Andrew did a very good job with his current event report. He presented both the benefits and setbacks of drilling for natural gas. His part about the negative affects was especially descriptive. He listed various setbacks such as industrial activity, heavy truck traffic, and water contamination. In addition, he did a nice job in explaining to us the process of extracting the gas called hydrofracking, and how it is hurtful to our environment. Andrew also did a great job transitioning between the different points of his summary and all of his ideas flowed very nicely. For example, during his part about hydrofracking he started out by telling us what it was and a few of its negative affects. After that, he moved into the debate about its legalization, which I thought fitted in perfectly. Reading Andrew’s report, I was informed with a lot of new information that I did not know of before. For example, I knew that extracting gas had some negatives to it but not to the extremes that were described in Andrew’s summary. A negative affect that was very shocking to me was the water contamination. The summary stated that if a water source was contaminated and that water was consumed, it could lead to death. Also, a statistic that I found to be very impressive was that extracting natural gas opened up 37,000 new jobs to Americans. That is very shocking to me because I would think that with machinery doing much of the work, there would be little need for human labor. Regardless, that statistic was very impressive and gives a strong argument for continuing this industry.
ReplyDeleteAndrew’s current event report was very interesting to read and had tons of information on the topic. One way this report could be improved however would be to include a firsthand account of a person who is directly impacted by the issue of extracting natural gas. Through all of your description, we get a good idea of how people suffer from the issue but a first hand account would make it seem much more believable. Also, there were a few grammar mistakes that could be fixed.
Andrew did a good job of presenting the information in a clear and concise way, which helped the reader to follow along and allowed for a better understanding of the information. For example, he presented the facts without dwelling on one particular fact too much. However, he presented the facts just enough to allow the reader to understand them. Also, I think Andrew did a very good job of presenting the positive and negative effects to allow the reader to compare and contrast them. He listed each benefit and described its affect and then listed each negative affect and listed how that could affect people’s lives. He even brought in an outside connection, saying he owned land in upstate New York and this could drastically impact his life. Finally, the way in which Andrew transitioned helped his response flow. He listed a bunch of the negative affects and at that point I was asking myself why we would ever allow this. Then, he incorporated the other point of view, which made me open to debate about the subject.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this article, I honestly didn’t think of New York as a state plentiful in natural gas deposits. You always think of New York as Wall Street, but after reading this article I discovered new meaning for New York and how its gas deposits can shape the future. Also, I learned that hydrofracking is not environmentally safe right now, but we are looking for safer methods of extracting this gas.
To improve his response, I think Andrew could have gone into a little more depth on why hydrofracking was necessary in upstate New York. I would like to know if there are other places around the country where this could be done. Maybe we could try this in areas that are not as populated. Still, it was very well written and contained minimal grammar mistakes.