• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Zoning as a response to hydraulic fracturing: A comparison of New York and Pennsylvania.
【24h】

Zoning as a response to hydraulic fracturing: A comparison of New York and Pennsylvania.

机译：分区对水力压裂的响应：纽约和宾夕法尼亚州的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Regardless of what side of the line we find ourselves on, the topic of unconventional natural gas extraction using the process of hydraulic fracturing in order to supplement the American energy market stirs strong emotions that have divided the national consensus. Natural gas is advertised as a cleaner and cheaper alternative to coal and oil by the oil and gas industry, and other proponents, but these deposits are located in shale beds and are currently being accessed with the controversial hydraulic fracturing horizontal drilling method. Despite the positive reasons given for the continued use of hydraulic fracturing in order to expand natural gas extraction operations, local governments in New York and Pennsylvania are passing zoning ordinances to ban, to enact moratoria or to restrict the location of natural gas drilling sites within their boundaries. Even though hydraulic fracturing started over 100 years ago, it was the invention of the horizontal technology added to the original vertical process that drastically opened and increased the possibilities of extracting natural gas for our market. This new technique was first experimented with in 2004 in the State of Pennsylvania without much fanfare, but over the past 10 years it has drastically expanded into populated areas and residents who live near drill sites have been sharing their stories of the negative impacts they have felt as a result. These details and accusations have generated distrust in the oil and gas industries claims that hydraulic fracturing is safe and distrust in the state's ability to regulate it properly in order to protect public welfare. Therefore, municipalities in Pennsylvania are using their home rule powers to pass zoning ordinances to decide where hydraulic fracturing can safely take place within their districts. The distrust in the hydraulic fracturing process from Pennsylvanians has crossed the state line into New York where there is a state wide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. As a result of the moratorium, a growing number of municipalities are taking this time to use their zoning powers to pass ordinances banning it or to place their own moratoria in case the Governor of New York decides to allow the permitting of its use. The passing of zoning ordinances in both states has generated a series of court cases where the oil and gas companies are taking municipalities to court claiming state law preempts local law when regulating a mineral extraction activity. As a result, the courts have become the defining factor through the use of jurisprudence in determining who possesses the regulatory authority over what, when it comes to extracting natural gas using hydraulic fracturing. As this research shows, hydraulic fracturing's exemption from federal regulations and its high impact land use has proven that zoning is a legal and logical option available to local communities to protect themselves from the expectation to extract as much natural gas as possible, where ever that may be. Therefore, the information in this paper will support zoning ordinances passed by municipalities in New York and Pennsylvania with the motivation to protect the health, safety and welfare of their communities from an industrial activity for the following reasons: the scientific community does not have the data to say hydraulic fracturing is safe, the regulatory structure overseeing the industry is weak, the courts have ruled municipalities have the legal right to regulate land use and to keep residential and industrial activities separate. These findings were additionally tested using the application of Regulatory Theory as a conceptual framework in order to validate the outcome from the literature review. Regulatory Theory asserts that when within an environment of deregulation a crisis will occur between a private enterprise that is profit motivated and those affected by it. In order to balance this crisis, moral consequences must be added to the equation of regulations which must be issued and enforced by a legal governmental body that seeks to protect public welfare and economic activities at the same time. Zoning ordinances, issued by local governments, will fit Regulatory Theories criteria to insert public welfare back into hydraulic fracturing's regulatory framework to regularize the crisis that exists within the context of this paper.
机译：不管我们站在哪一边，利用水力压裂工艺来补充美国能源市场的非常规天然气开采这一话题都激起了分裂全国共识的强烈情绪。石油和天然气行业以及其他支持者宣传天然气是煤炭和石油的一种更便宜，更便宜的替代品，但是这些沉积物位于页岩床中，目前正通过有争议的水力压裂水平钻井方法进行开采。尽管为继续扩大水力开采业务而继续使用水力压裂有积极的理由，但纽约和宾夕法尼亚州的地方政府仍在通过分区条例，以禁止，颁布禁令或限制天然气钻探点在其内部的位置边界。尽管水力压裂始于100年前，但水平技术的发明却被添加到原始的垂直工艺中，从而极大地打开了市场，并增加了为我们的市场开采天然气的可能性。这项新技术于2004年在宾夕法尼亚州进行了首次大张旗鼓的试验，但是在过去的10年中，它已迅速扩展到人口稠密的地区，住在钻探地点附近的居民分享了他们所感受到的负面影响的故事。结果是。这些细节和指控使人们对石油和天然气行业声称水力压裂是安全的不信任，并对该州为保护公众利益而适当调节水力的能力不信任。因此，宾夕法尼亚州的市政当局正在利用其自治权通过分区法令，以决定在其所在地区安全进行水力压裂的地点。宾夕法尼亚州人对水力压裂过程的不信任已经越过了州界，进入了纽约，纽约州在整个州范围内暂停了水力压裂。由于实行了禁令，越来越多的市政当局正利用这段时间利用其划区权力通过禁令，或在纽约州州长决定允许使用该禁令的情况下自行宣布暂停。两国通过分区条例已经产生了一系列法院案件，其中石油和天然气公司将市政当局告上法庭，声称在规范矿产开采活动时州法律先于地方法律。结果，在通过水力压裂法开采天然气时，法院通过判例法来确定谁对什么拥有管控权，法院已成为决定性因素。正如该研究表明的那样，水力压裂免于联邦法规及其对土地的高影响力使用已证明，分区是当地社区可利用的法律和逻辑选择，可以保护自己免受可能开采尽可能多天然气的期望。是。因此，本文中的信息将支持纽约和宾夕法尼亚州市政当局通过的分区条例，其动机是为了保护其社区免受工业活动的健康，安全和福祉，其原因如下：科学界没有数据可以说，水力压裂是安全的，监督该行业的监管结构薄弱，法院裁定市政当局具有管理土地使用以及将住宅和工业活动区分开的合法权利。使用监管理论作为概念框架，还对这些发现进行了测试，以验证文献综述的结果。监管理论断言，在放松管制的环境中，以利润为动机的私营企业与受其影响的私营企业之间将发生危机。为了平衡这种危机，必须将道德后果添加到必须由寻求同时保护公共福利和经济活动的合法政府机构发布和执行的法规等式中。地方政府颁布的分区条例将符合监管理论标准，以便将公共福利重新纳入水力压裂的监管框架中，以规范本文中存在的危机。

著录项

  • 作者

    Newell, Stephanie E.;

  • 作者单位

    Northern Arizona University.;

  • 授予单位 Northern Arizona University.;
  • 学科 Land Use Planning.;Petroleum Geology.;Literature Comparative.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2014
  • 页码 134 p.
  • 总页数 134
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 新闻学、新闻事业;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号