Controversial 'Fracking' Vote Canceled For Monday

Critical vote on Monday canceled after Delaware Governor Jack Markell said he had major concerns with "fracking," which environmentalists say will cause irreparable harm to the region.

The increasing pressure environmental groups and state legislators put on four governors tasked to determine if a controversial gas drilling process known as "fracking" could sweep through the region may have prevented a critical vote from being held on Monday.

Delaware Gov. Jack Markell wrote a letter Thursday to the members of the Delaware River Water Basin Commission (DRWBC) – comprised of the governors of Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Army Corps of Engineers – saying that he would vote against a regional agency plan to mine the Delaware watershed for natural gas. Thousands rallied in all four states to prevent and protest a vote.

Subsequently, Monday's vote was canceled and has not been rescheduled, according to the Delaware commission.

"Apparently Delaware and New York were going to vote 'No' and that left it to New Jersey and Pennsylvania," said New Jersey State Assemblywoman Connie Wagner (D-38), one of the most ardent opponents of fracking. "We knew Pennsylvania was going to vote 'yes' and probably New Jersey would have been voting 'yes', which means the federal government must have had some doubts."

Wagner, who was the prime sponsor of a bill in New Jersey's lower house to outright ban fracking, joined a crowd of 60 environmental activists and concerned citizens in Ridgewood's on Thursday night for a rally against fracking.

It was one of dozens of rallies held in the affected states before word of the vote cancellation. Even with the cancellation, 1,000 people are expected to march on Trenton on Monday, according to 350.org organizer Matt Smith.

"With education and with people taking a stand, people do have the power to make a difference," Wagner stated in an interview Friday. "I congratulate all the environmental groups for working so hard to make sure this doesn't happen. It causes people to take notice and say, 'maybe this isn't good for the Delaware Water Basin, maybe this isn't good for the quality of our drinking water which will affect our health.'"

Fracking for natural gas has been touted, largely in television commercials sponsored by corporations with interests in drilling, as a way to safely and effectively extract natural gas from more than a mile underground, well below, they say, where drinking water comes from. There are vast quantities of natural gas beneath the Marcellus Shale, a 575-mile area in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York but not New Jersey, where the Utica Shale exists in a small corner of the northwest portion of the state.

Governor Chris Christie in August vetoed a bi-partisan bill passed in the state legislature to ban fracking in New Jersey.

Wagner was unsure if the legislature would be able to overturn the veto before the lame duck session ends in January 2012. A moratorium extension of five years to properly study environmental impacts would be a compromise she could accept, the assemblywoman said.

The governor's office refused to comment Friday, referring questions to the state DEP.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Larry Ragonese said it has requested the Delaware commission "ensure there are good and strict regulations in place."

Ragonese said the DEP's recommendations would be the stiffest in the country, though they're not nearly tough enough for detractors.

"Our recommendation included kind of a pilot program, a phased-in possibility which would allow for 30 pods to be constructed in the basin, so a small limited number which would operate for 18 months and then be assessed," Ragonese said.

He said dangers with 30 pods would be minimal at best. 

"This would give us real solid data, some real science as to what impact it could be for fracking in the Delaware River Basin," he said. "As the Department of Environmental Protection, our No. 1 goal is the environment so we're concerned solely with protecting the water resources and the natural resources of the Delaware River basin."

Put simply,  is accomplished by using a pressurized fracking fluid to carve veins into shale rock deep in the earth. The mini-earthquake that results underground creates cracks around the veins, which results in the release of natural gas. The gas is then brought to the surface in the form of a liquid and is then separated.

As many as 500 chemicals are used in the process, environmentalists say. Fracking is exempted under federal Clean Air and Safe Drinking Act provisions.

The Delaware River provides drinking water to 15 million people in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The controversial drilling process has aroused the concern of environmental activists who say hydraulic fracturing will pollute groundwater, damage air quality and could lead to future earthquakes. 

According to activist group Water Defense, New York and Pennsylvania are estimated to use more than 10 billion gallons of water over the next decade should the gas companies find support. The water would be drawn from the public's drinking sources, they say.

It's a concern of Harriet Shugarman, a Climate Educator for the Climate Reality Project.

"It's not okay to be allowed to be scared into thinking we need gas," said Thursday. She added that the government should invest more in renewable energy as opposed to eyeing the controversial extraction method.

In hardscrabble Pennsylvania coal country residents are divided on the issue, according to an article in the New York Times Magazine. Some have reaped economic rewards by leasing their land to gas companies, a boon in a region with economic hardship. But reports of gas leaks, increasing reports of strange illnesses, sudden deaths of otherwise healthy animals and water quality concerns have also led to a backlash from citizens.

Although the vote will not come on Monday, environmentalists say New Jersey and other states are not out of the woods.

Edward Van Embden contributed to this report.

Don November 25, 2011 at 04:30 PM
Some people are talking about backyard fracking coming to NJ now. IS it possible?
Monk November 26, 2011 at 10:53 PM
I certainly hope so. It is a great deal more sensible than subsidizing premature, ill-conceived, poorly managed and incompetently operated so-called green energy boondoggles.
zyxwvu November 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM
Monk November 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM
RE: zyxwvu: per Wikipedia, "The New York Times has been variously described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper."
zyxwvu November 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Tom - While I agree with you that the NYT can only be considered a liberal newspaper...this stuff scares me. My brother is an environmental attorney who was a geologist in an environmental clean up company before he went to law school and I've talked at length with him about this. Unless and until the natural gas companies are willing to list all of the chemicals that are in the fracking fluid and can prove unquestionably that the flowback fluids do not bring up all kinds of junk (benzine, arsenic, etc.), this stuff scares me. (On a personal note: Thank you for your polite comment about my post. I have noticed that people on this site can be quite mean to each other. I was nervous about posting.)
Robert F. Galgano November 28, 2011 at 02:26 PM
A conservative's water supply can be just as effectively poisoned as a liberal's by fracking. Everyone should see the documentary "Gasland": http://amzn.to/uRdhXK "In 2009, filmmaker Josh Fox learned his home in the Delaware River Basin was on top of the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation containing natural gas that stretches across New York, Pennsylvania and huge stretches of the Northeast. He was offered $100,000 to lease his land for a new method of drilling developed by Halliburton and soon discovered this was only a part of a 34-state drilling campaign, the largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in history. Part mystery, part travelogue, and part banjo showdown, Gasland documents Josh's cross-country odyssey to find out if the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing - or fracking - is actually safe. As he interviews people who live on or around current fracking sites, Josh learns of things gone horribly wrong, from illness to hair loss to flammable water, and his inquiries lead him ever deeper into a web of secrets, lies, conspiracy, and contamination - a web that potentially stretches to threaten the New York Watershed. Unearthing a shocking story about a practice that is understudied and inadequately regulated, Gasland races to find answer about fracking before it's far too late."
Monk November 28, 2011 at 05:48 PM
It just bothers me that our economy and nation has been harmed mostly by ideologues who base their positions on phony environmental science and Marxist philosophy. A lot of arguments that "the sky will fall" or other disaster will occur are made by ideologues and have proven to be propaganda.
zyxwvu November 28, 2011 at 11:23 PM
Tom - You must not have read the NYT article then. The article is about people who leased their land and allowed the fracking on their property. They made lots of money but ended up with dead dogs and, in this particular case, a child who became so sick that his pediatrician told the child's parent to move at least 30 miles away from their home due to an elevated level of arsenic that accumulated in his system. I have also read that banks that hold mortgages on properties in the Marcellus Shale zone are very nervous that once the fracking begins, the properties that they hold mortgages on will be worthless. I don't think dead animals and sick kids is phony environmental science or Marxist philosophy. The owners who leased their land were not (to my knowledge) liberals or Marxists. Quite the contrary, they were typical, average Americans who were given an opportunity to make some money at an enormous cost to their health and destruction of their homes. Scary stuff indeed. If the retrieval of the natural gas could be proven to be done without harm to people and the environment I would be its biggest proponent. However, from what I have read...this is not the case. As a mother of (thank goodness) healthy children, I would not be willing to take a risk like this.
Monk November 29, 2011 at 02:16 PM
zyx, I've read the article, and I am skeptical. Who's to say it is unbiased, or even accurate for that matter. The article comes from a New America Foundation staffer. The New America Foundation is a collection of Ivy League, e.g., Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, etc., grads "headquartered in Washington D.C. and also has a significant presence in California, the nation's largest laboratory of democracy." Harvard grads, Washington, D.C. and California aren't to whom I turn for guidance in my life. This will all shake out just fine. The melodrama isn't necessary.
Tired Taxpayer November 29, 2011 at 06:17 PM
One has little time to figure out what the political bias is behind these "independent" scientific studies. The State DEP proposal of phasing-in and monitoring makes some sense - but in my opinon a better idea would be for the Federal EPA to do a study of the impacts fracking has on drinking water at EXISING SITES in other states (did I just suggest the Federal Goverment do something?!?). This would allow communities such as ours to make informed decisions based on fact.
Monk November 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM
The Federal EPA right now is about the least politically independent agency you could ask to deliver a verdict having enormously destructive economic consequences. I mean, the EPA pushes massively complex and costly regulations that would micromanage just about every aspect of the economy, i.e., your life. The millions of dollars in compliance costs are unnecessary costs that businesses have to pass on to the American consumer, slowing economic growth and killing jobs. We are at the point where the cost of government cannot be borne by the taxpayers any longer. I don't believe anyone is for compulsively raping the land. But I do believe that the ever more bloated parasite on society which is government is not acting as beneficially on society as it once did.
Julia December 01, 2011 at 04:42 AM
While I agree less government is a consideration given our current economic status, when t comes to environmental considerations There are not enough public policies to protect our environment. Who invented Fracking, and who was watching out for the environment when it started? We have the EPA, DOE, PUC and were they all involved in the development of this process? We must remember the uranium mining that took place during the cold war. The EPA DOE are still responsible for cleaning up the reservations. These are not superfund sites they are megasites that are still so dangerous theses agencies are not able access the area. One event was the equivalent to Chernobyl in that 9 million gallons of radioactive waste was released into the Rio Puerco River in New Mexico. The radiation was so intense it literally burned and melted 'everything 'within an 80 mile radius. All plants,animals and people. Who is going t pay for this clean up? Certainly not the mining operation.
Julia December 01, 2011 at 04:45 AM
Tired taxpayer I guess you haven't seen the video of the man in Oklahoma who lives near a fracking site is able to light his tap water on fire?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »