Map of the Marcellus Shale (photo accessed on greencollarrap.com)

On October 18th, I posted a blog entitled "Will the Pursuit of Natural Gas Endanger New York's Drinking Water?"  In this post, I discussed the probable abundance of natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale, which lies beneath much of the New York City Watershed-the daily source of New Yorker's drinking water.  I also advocated for preserving our indispensable water supply in lieu of the natural gas drilling that could occur if its plans are to be finalized by the state of New York.

Less than ten days after my blog was posted, a major energy company, who is one of the country's biggest gas producers and the largest leaseholder in the Marcellus Shale, announced that it will not drill in the New York Watershed.  In an October 27th article in The New York Times, the decision of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation and its implications were described:  Chesapeake Energy C.E.O. Aubrey McClendon stated that not one well could be so lucrative that it would be worth harming the New York City water supply.  The article goes on to note that "the reversal seems to signal a more conciliatory tone from the gas industry, which is facing mounting opposition in New York to its drilling practices. The decision also increases the pressure on state regulators to reverse their decision to allow drilling within the watershed."  In fact, many New York state officials have willingly supported the potential natural gas drilling.  Particularly in this economic slump, officials see the prospective lucrative gains of tapping into the expansive gas reserve that comprises the Marcellus Shale.

But economic prospects are not completely out of the picture for Chesapeake Energy.  While the company has affirmed that it will not drill within the confines of the Watershed, Chesapeake and others are still projected to drill for natural gas in the state of New York.  In response to Chesapeake Energy's decision not to drill in the Watershed, Riverkeeper President Alex Matthiessen remarked that while the company is to be commended for recognizing that industrial gas drilling within a sizeable water supply source is a dangerous plan, Mr. McClendon should join Riverkeeper and their call for a permanent ban, which would forever ensure the safeguarding of New York's drinking water supply from gas drilling.

As I am a college student, I was interested in seeing what some of my fellow peers thought about the prospects for natural gas drilling in the New York area.  Conducting a small randomized statistical study (sample size = 30 people) on the campus of Columbia University this past week, I handed out a short questionnaire in regards to 1) supporting industrial gas drilling in the NYC Watershed and 2) supporting industrial gas drilling in New York State outside of the Watershed confines.  Here are the results*:

1) Industrial gas drilling in the NYC Watershed

            Support:                    16.67%

            Don't Support:            53.33%

            Unaware of Issue:       30%

2) Industrial gas drilling in NY State outside of the Watershed confines

            Support:                    33.33%

            Don't Support:            36.67%

            Unaware of Issue:       30%

In this study, one third of those approached were unaware of the projections for industrial gas drilling in New York State.  In response to both questions, a majority did not support industrial gas drilling, though this majority was much larger in terms of drilling in the Watershed itself.  In terms of a qualitative analysis, participants who responded that they were against drilling in the Watershed but for drilling outside of those confines cited belief that environmental damage would be far less outside of the surface drinking water supply and that the economic prosperity that could come about from gas drilling "would be too good to pass up," as one contributor noted.  The monetary gains were similarly cited as reasons for support for both questions one and two.  On the other hand, severe environmental destruction was the widely held reason for responding "Don't Support" in both questions.

While I did not participate in my study, I would have answered "Don't Support" for both topics.  I personally question why we would put one of our natural resources in danger (the Hudson River and its tributaries) in order to yield another (natural gas).  While the answer to this question may not be clear, one thing is certain-the state of New York should not allow the possible cost-effectiveness of natural gas drilling to influence a decision that could put our environment in danger.    

[* Please be aware that the results of my study are in no way indicative of how the Columbia University community feels about industrial gas drilling in the state of New York, as my sample size was extremely small.]