Governor Chris Christie may seek to limit to five years the permanent ban on hydrofracturing (fracking) contained in a bill that received final passage in the state legislature last week.
Bob Jordon of Gannett's Statehouse Bureau wrote today that Christie may call for the change by returning the legislation to the Senate and Assembly in a conditional veto. A CV is a deal-cutting method used by governors to say: Hey, Legislature, if you make changes x, y and z, I'll sign your bill.
Christie hasn't publicly commented on the fracking ban contained in S-2576, but his close ally, Senator Joseph Kyrillos, offered an unsuccessful amendment on the Senate floor that called for the ban to serve for five years only.
In arguing for the limit, Kyrillos said:
No natural gas drilling is taking place currently in New Jersey. The gas-rich Marcellus Shale bypasses the Garden State in its stretch from Western New York into Pennsylvania.
But environmentalists are concerned that another shale deposit, the Utica formation, eventually will come into play.
For more on how New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are dealing with 'fracking,' check out our recent posts:
Three years and still no fracking tax in PA...here's why
NJ bans fracking. NY un-bans it. PA skips a frack tax
Corbett stares down PA lawmakers on gas-drilling fees
Winning hearts and minds of six-year-olds--for fracking
Marcellus Shale sites included in EPA fracking study
PA bill requires disclosure of chemicals in fracking fluid
Try it free for 30 days! No obligation. Cancel anytime with one click.
Bob Jordon of Gannett's Statehouse Bureau wrote today that Christie may call for the change by returning the legislation to the Senate and Assembly in a conditional veto. A CV is a deal-cutting method used by governors to say: Hey, Legislature, if you make changes x, y and z, I'll sign your bill.
Christie hasn't publicly commented on the fracking ban contained in S-2576, but his close ally, Senator Joseph Kyrillos, offered an unsuccessful amendment on the Senate floor that called for the ban to serve for five years only.
In arguing for the limit, Kyrillos said:
"“I understand the thrust (of the proposed permanent ban), and from what I can see this practice is not in the form that we would like, and there’s potential danger, but it’s also possible that over time the practice can be refined,” Kyrillos said.
“There is great promise of natural gas finds in the country, in Pennsylvania and perhaps someday in New Jersey, though that’s not the case today. I think it’s more prudent, as we try to deal with more ways to be energy independent and motivate our economy for the next generation, to preserve the option in case we get to the point of environmental safety.”
No natural gas drilling is taking place currently in New Jersey. The gas-rich Marcellus Shale bypasses the Garden State in its stretch from Western New York into Pennsylvania.
But environmentalists are concerned that another shale deposit, the Utica formation, eventually will come into play.
For more on how New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are dealing with 'fracking,' check out our recent posts:
Three years and still no fracking tax in PA...here's why
NJ bans fracking. NY un-bans it. PA skips a frack tax
Corbett stares down PA lawmakers on gas-drilling fees
Winning hearts and minds of six-year-olds--for fracking
Marcellus Shale sites included in EPA fracking study
PA bill requires disclosure of chemicals in fracking fluid
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this post? You'll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics

Commenting, via LinkedIn, Steven J. Corodemus, Esq., wrote:
ReplyDelete"While renewable energy production continues to grow in NJ it will take quite some time for this industry to replace, if ever, traditional affordable fossil/nuclear fuel sources. Those concerned about national security from an energy perspective, would agree that domestic energy production should be allowed to grow. The environmentalists state that there are adequate "domestic energy" resources - advocating reduction or elimination of foreign energy imports. Where and how remains to be seen. They all can't have it their way!
There must be a balance struck for clean energy production from all sources
Writing via LinkedIn, Gus Escher, Managing Director at BB&T Capital Markets wrote:
ReplyDelete"I agree with Steve -
No question that there should be mandates for a balance of energy generation sources from state, regional and federal agencies. Most industry observers have been waiting for these mandates since the 1980s !!!
But, hey, we all know that a BALANCE OF SOURCES doesn't necessarily mean a BALANCE OF POLLUTANTS.
Fossil fuel sources are really cheap and really bad for the air and water. Sometimes the pollutants come from extracting the fuels, sometimes from transporting the fuels, and sometimes from burning the fuels. Sure, there are contraptions (scrubbers, purifiers, chemical additives, etc.) that can limit environmental damage, but it's still damage we don't want.
Locally, the hot topic now is "fracking" in the Marcellus shale deposits of PA, NJ & NY. This is simply a process of drilling 5-mile+ deep holes ("wells") into the earth, forcing ("pumping") water and really crappy chemicals into the holes, and receiving natural gas emmissions from the holes, which emmissions are bottled or put in pipelines and then sold.
The process generates 1) large amounts of "fracking water" - a nasty contaminated fluid - sometimes reused, and 2) sludge-like granular "dirt" that is also contaminated and must be trucked on public roads to certified landfills.
I am a "Green" investment banker actively involved in financing projects that can cost-effectively eliminate the pollution of fracking activities.
Please contact me at my BB&T Capital Markets office at 201-462-0338 or on my cell at 609-413-1749. Together, we can build a good BALANCE of energy generation from GREEN and CLEAN sources.