If my recollection serves, it all started in the spring in 2010. It seems that almost overnight the lawns of upstate New York were littered with signs proclaiming the mantra, "No Drill, No Spill". I still have no idea where they came from or who provided them but they are now ubiquitous to the area. If you live in in the area, you know what I mean. This was obviously a concerted and coordinated effort to turn public opinion against the extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus shale formation. At the time, the New York state assembly and senate were debating a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. The bill eventually passed both chambers by a resounding margin. But why? I consider myself a bit of a political junkie and I had heard next to nothing about what the true issues were in this debate, if you can call it that.
I have to say that I was skeptical from the start. This issue was being driven by a decidedly left wing cohort and I have learned over the years that progressive ideologues can be less than honest. Therefore, I decided to look into the controversy myself.
The Marcellus shale is the largest unconventional natural gas reserve in the world. While reserve estimates should be considered somewhat uncertain at this early stage, aseach new Marcellus well is completed, estimates of recoverable reserves of at least 489 trillion cubic feet seem increasingly reasonable. The market and strategic value of the Marcellus Shale will no doubt grow as conventional natural gas reserves are depleted and our economy adjusts to a path with lower greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas has considerably lower carbon content than petroleum and coal. The market share of natural gas in electric power generation continues to expand and opportunities for switching from petroleum to natural gas beckon in the transportation sector.
This is a technique that has been used since the 1960's and over a million wells have been drilled. It "is a process employed to cause natural gas to move more freely from the rock pores where it is trapped into a drilled well than it could otherwise move. Fracing involves the high-pressure injection of fracturing fluids into discrete sections of the drilled well, causing fractures in the rock and pushing them open. The fracturing fluids consist primarily of water and sand. A small percentage of the fluid consists of chemical additives, including friction reducers and bactericides. The function of the sand is to prevent the fractures from closing when the high pressure is released."
The arguments against hydrofracking seem to boil down to only a few issues. That fracturing shale formations will result in the ultimate contamination of drinking water. That above ground wastewater containment will ultimately fail resulting in the contamination of rivers, streams and lakes and finally that this process will be a blight on the communities in which it is utilized.
Process aside, concern about groundwater contamination has received little substantive support from either regulators or the scientific community. For example, Alexander Grannis, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, while expressing the need for study of the impact of water consumption on public water supplies, has publicly testified that no realistic risk of groundwater contamination from the fracing process exists: Grannis said, "It is important to understand that the hydraulic fracturing takes places many thousands of feet underground, well below any groundwater zones. Groundwater zones are typically hundreds, not thousands, of feet below the surface. The same geology that has sealed natural gas in the rock for millions of years - together with our strict well casing and cementing requirements - prevents any risk of groundwater contamination from the drilling and fracking operation. As a result, the only likely vector for possible threats to groundwater comes from the surface management of the water used in the drilling and fracking operations." (Testimony before the New York State Assembly Hearing on Oil and Gas Drilling, October 15, 2008).
In a like vein, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission states on its website that, "In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completed a study of the environmental risks associated with the hydraulic fracturing of coal bed methane wells. The EPA concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids poses little or no threat to underground sources of drinking water. Although thousands of wells are fractured annually, the EPA did not find a single incident of the contamination of drinking water wells by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection. Effective state regulation has made hydraulic fracturing a safe and environmentally-sound way to maximize and conserve our nation's natural resources." (Seehttp://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/hydraulic-fracturing).
From the environmentalist community, charges have been made that hydraulic fracturing may result in groundwater contamination. Typically, these charges are relatively mild. For example, the Catskill Riverkeeper organization, while noting "cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the suspected source of impaired or polluted drinking water," acknowledges that these are not cases involving fracing at the depths involved with the Marcellus region: "Most of these incidences involve coal-bed methane production, which is a much shallower drilling process . . ." (See http://catskillmountainkeeper.org/node/290).
As for contamination at the ground surface resulting from spills, overflows from storage basins, etc., it is evident that risks exist. However, most of the risks appear to be in line with those associated with the collection, storage, transportation and overall management of wastewater streams generated by numerous other industrial processes. Permitting and regulatory programs already exist to address these risks, which are identifiable and quantifiable.
For what it's worth, "There are no confirmed incidents of fracturing operations contaminating groundwater. Fracking has been used in more than one million wells in the United States, and studies by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Ground Water Protection Council have confirmed no direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and the contamination of groundwater drinking supplies. The wells are drilled thousands of feet below the aquifers, and the groundwater is protected by casing."
The Marcellus shale is the largest unconventional natural gas reserve in the world.While reserve estimates should be considered somewhat uncertain at this early stage, as each new Marcellus well is completed, estimates of recoverable reserves of at least 489 trillion cubic feet seem increasingly reasonable. The market and strategic value of the Marcellus Shale will no doubt grow as conventional natural gas reserves are depleted and our economy adjusts to a path with lower greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas has considerably lower carbon content than petroleum and coal. The market share of natural gas in electric power generation continues to expand and opportunities for switching frompetroleum to natural gas beckon in the transportation sector.
This study finds that the Marcellus gas industry in Pennsylvania generated $2.3 billion in total value added, more than 29,000 jobs, and $240 million in state and local taxes during 2008. With a substantially higher pace of development during 2009, economic output will top $3.8 billion, state and local tax revenues will be more than $400 million, and total job creation will exceed 48,000.
The previously cited "Penn State report found that each natural gas well drilled in the Marcellus region produced $6.2 million in economic impact, both for the state and to citizens directly. It also calculated that for every $1 that Marcellus shale gas producers spend to find and produce that gas, $1.94 of total economic output is generated."
Much of this controversy has been driven by the documentary "Gasland". Like most documentaries produced by progressives there is more fiction, that fact. This film may be the latest example. A quick google search finds numerous articles calling into question the conclusions drawn from the film. I will only refer you to the following video. You can otherwise look for yourself...
Perhaps the most remarkable finding is that there is not complete agreement within the environmentalist community. The Environmental Defense Fund's Scott Anderson discusses why he believes fracking can be performed safely, with minimal risk to the environment. Video can be seen here.
Transcript:
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Scott Anderson, a Senior Policy Advisor at the Environmental Defense Fund. Scott, thanks for coming on the show.Scott Anderson: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Scott, hydraulic fracturing, a technique used to drill for natural gas, is under scrutiny for its environmental and health impacts. Why is there so much uncertainty surrounding this practice?
Scott Anderson: There's several reasons. Part of it is that the industry has not come forward to tell the public exactly what chemicals are being used in the process. Another reason is that hydraulic fracturing has now left parts of the country where people are familiar with the practice and has begun to be used in areas where it's not so familiar.
Monica Trauzzi: What about the transparency from the industry? Is there enough? Are they sort of changing their tone now that there's more of an emphasis on this practice?
Scott Anderson: Some companies are changing their tone. I could mention a few specifically and I may in a minute, but generally companies have not changed their tone and it's very surprising to me that that they haven't. I'm very puzzled because they're shooting themselves in the foot I think as far as public acceptance is concerned.
Monica Trauzzi: Do you believe that this technique can be used safely?
Scott Anderson: Yes, I do. I think in the vast majority of cases, if wells are constructed right and operated right, that hydraulic fracturing will not cause a problem.
Monica Trauzzi: So, there's a coalition now of environmental and industry representatives coming together to draft a framework for regulation of this practice. What does that framework look like?
Scott Anderson: Before I talk about the framework itself, I need to clarify exactly where we are in terms of forming a coalition. I don't want to say that we yet have a coalition, but we are ready to announce that a coalition is forming. The Environmental Defense Fund and Southwestern Energy have been working for a number of months to develop model regulations that you refer to. And we are able to announce that that has now developed into a broader group effort for multi-stakeholders, both industry and environmental groups. But we're not prepared yet to say who the other participants are.
Monica Trauzzi: And the framework itself, what are you hoping it will look like?
Scott Anderson: Well, the framework focuses on well construction and operation. And those people who understand the drilling process generally also understand that hydraulic fracturing is just a subset of the well construction and operation process. And more important than the details of how hydraulic fracturing is conducted are things like getting the cement right in the wells, getting the pipe right that's in the wells, managing pressure properly so that if there's unexpected surges in pressure people respond to it correctly. And then the fourth thing that's important is to make sure that wells are located or that fracturing operations take place beneath a cap rock, beneath a layer of rock that's sufficient to keep the fractures from coming up into the drinking water.
Monica Trauzzi: So, EPA is investigating this right now. They've requested information from the industry. There have been some delays though with the industry getting that information to EPA. Is that curious to you at all? Does that concern you at all, that they're maybe not being as forthcoming with information?
Scott Anderson: Well, as far as companies responses to these particular request, I'm really not knowledgeable about what the cause of the delays would be and I would say if the delays are short, that, no, it won't concern me. If the delays turn out to be long, then yes, I think that would look suspicious.
Monica Trauzzi: So, if EPA get the information and they determine that the practices save, is that something that the environmental community then will be happy with and will feel comfortable then allowing for this practice to continue?
Scott Anderson: Yes, so we need to divide that question into several questions. The requests there that I was just referring to, they're requests that have been made most recently, only have to do with the identity of the chemicals. EPA's study of hydraulic fracturing, in general, is going to take a lot more time than their inquiry into the chemicals.
Monica Trauzzi: How difficult is it for states to regulate this practice and should it be done on a state-by-state basis, a region-by-region basis, or nationally?
Scott Anderson: Yeah, the states actually have a lot of knowledge and experience in regulating well construction and operation. We think that the states have every reason to be able to tackle this issue and do it well. We also think that if the states fail in that and the federal government has to take over, then the states will have no one but themselves to blame.
Monica Trauzzi: Without this practice of hydraulic fracturing, what would our natural gas supplies look like?
Scott Anderson: Our natural gas supplies would plummet precipitously without hydraulic fracturing. About 90 percent of the gas wells in the United States are hydraulically fractured and the shale gas that everyone talks about as being a large part of the future of natural gas production, it is absolutely dependent on fracturing in, I believe, each case.
Monica Trauzzi: So, you would say that this is a necessary part of our energy future?
Scott Anderson: Yes, at Environmental Defense Fund we don't pick fuels, but we are realists and we recognize that fossil fuels will be around for a while, a long while most likely. And we also recognize that natural gas has some environmental advantages compared to other fossil fuels. So, we do believe that natural gas will be around and has a significant role to play and, therefore, we have to cope with the hydraulic fracturing issue. That's not to say that natural gas development should happen everywhere. There are certainly some sensitive areas where it really is appropriate to simply not have development. But where there's development, the public needs to recognize that some impact is inevitable and the question is how to minimize that impact and be as protective of the environment as reasonably possible.
Monica Trauzzi: OK, we'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show.
Scott Anderson: OK.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
Please bookmark!
No comments:
Post a Comment