US Energy Panel Cautiously Endorses Fracking

Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that a U.S. Energy Department advisory panel has endorsed fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, a promising technology that injects a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals underground to fracture rock and release shale gas previously thought unretrievable, paving the way for tens of thousands of new wells. If fracking can be done safely, it could be a major source of domestic energy over the next century. Shale gas makes up about 14 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply today, but is expected to reach 45 percent by 2035. But first, serious environmental concerns must be addressed. Earlier this year, a Duke University study of 68 private groundwater wells in Pennsylvania and New York state found evidence that shale-gas extraction has caused them to become contaminated with methane. One key recommendation by the panel is a call for transparency regarding the use of chemicals in the extraction process. Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage."

Comments

It already is a major, massive source of energy

[decora]

There are already thousands and thosuands of wells all over the United States, that was the whole point of part of Cheney's energy plan.

Please see GASLAND by Josh Fox.

Fun fact - the people who own those mineral rights probably don't care about the environmental damage, they are getting massively rich. if you could somehow spread out the wind-power profits to tens of thousands of people you might see more political support for wind farms.

Re:It already is a major, massive source of energy

[Gideon Wells]

I live near State College, Pa. Knew several people who went wind farming as in this state there is a group that will pay you if you generate surplus energy. I've heard nothing from complaints about single digit pay outs. Your wind farm idea won't work here.

Marcellus Shale? There are the people who don't want it due to environmental reasons and the people in rural communities who have $28,000 average house hold incomes thinking this is he best golden era for the state since the coal mines and lumber clear cutting. The area needs money badly.

Not just drilling is helping us. Businesses that were shut down due to the economy have reopened and retooled to M.S. support. General metal fabricators are now reopening as dedicated parts crafters for well pads. Welders are producing storage tanks. Cash strapped municiplaties are selling water to be used for fracking. There are roads that were once paved, deteriorated into gravel that were repaved by the Shale Drillers in order to have good roads for their trucks. Locals are now being hired for 2-4x the average salary for the area. There are even talks in several communities of building frack water treatment facilities.

Jobs, money, etc. are being created by shale when green energy such as the ethanol plant a county away is shutting down. I just wish it was all being done by something without such negative impacts.

Additional Fun Facts:
* Mineral rights != Shale rights in PA. We also have a thing called gas rights.
* Well drillers can drill on your property if you want it or not if your neighbors sell their rights but your property is the only one around that can support a well.

Re:It already is a major, massive source of energy

[ColdWetDog]

You should read up on the concept of Resource Curse. In fact, your region has already dealt with those issues twice according to your post (coal, timber). Yes, you make money in the short term which is hard to ignore because long term your region has gone through several boom bust cycles and you're in one of the 'bust' times at present.

Shale gas, while interesting and perhaps important in the short term suffers from two significant drawbacks. First is the fallout from hydrofracking. As several posters have pointed out, this is a technical issue and can be mitigated by best practices. Which somehow never seem to happen (cf, the nuclear power industry). The second is harder to escape. It is a very short term resource. In 5-10-20 years (not the 100 year timeframe that is bandied about by industry), the pressures will drop to unusable levels. Yes, you can 're frack' but that's expensive and natural gas (currently) isn't.

So, you're back to another resource that temporarily brought some economic good to the region, allowed a few lucky people to cash out and trashes the environment for everyone for long periods of time. You all should at least take the hint from Alaska and try to keep the money in state a bit longer.

Cynics and skeptics are right.

[Anonymous Coward]

"In our judgment, they should disclose the entire suite of chemicals," except in "very rare" instances in which chemicals are judged to be truly proprietary, John Deutch, chairman of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, told The Associated Press.

Always giving them a loophole.

But the panel also said the industry's stock reply that fracking has been performed safely for more than 60 years won't succeed in convincing a skeptical public.

Of course the public is skeptical. I'm a cynic - industry will always lie to protect their profits even if it harms public health. There are no exceptions.

And continuing with my cynicism:

The panel said it "shares the prevailing view" that fracking poses a low risk to drinking water supplies because thousands of feet of earth separate fracking chemicals from groundwater.

The panel was "lobbied" by industry and was "pressured" by the politicians to say that - to put it nicely.

Re:no, i mean GASLAND

[Tomato42]

Thing is, it's not because of gas companies that there is methane in water. It's a natural process that was happening for at least few hundred years.

It's not like they are without fault, but I give credit where credit is due.

Permission-- for a secret process? WTF?

[Geoffrey.landis]

Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage.

And they should be allowed to keep their formulas secret.

However, if they do, they shouldn't be allowed to inject them into the environment.

(COMPANY: "I need approval to make a chemical release into the environment." EPA: "OK, what chemical?" COMPANY: "We can't tell you, it's secret." EPA: "OK, here's your permit."

WTF?

Water industry professionals also involved

[rbrander]

This is not just crusading journalists and panicking farmers. The (peer-reviewed) journal of the American Waterworks Association, September 2010, which mostly has articles like "Characterization of filter media MnOx(s) surfaces and Mn removal capability", also has an article on "The Threat From Hydrofracking" by Paul Rush, the deputy commissioner for water supply for New York City. It's an opinion article, not a scientific paper, but he lays out his case as if it were.

The industry's largest concern is that everybody has been forbidden to get involved in the regulation or permitting of these businesses - talk about your big-government incursion into (very) local concerns, like what's in your water source. Normally, water supply utilities are also charged by the state with protecting the watershed, and can do things like bring suit against hog farms that would let in e. coli. Not here.

As Rush puts it, "...the technical assessment indicated that migration of methane or fluids through natural fractures in the bedrock, some extending for miles, could compromise the city's aqueducts and shafts...Additionally, given the New York State regulatory infrastructure and the rules governing compulsory integration, drillers could potentially receive a permit authorizing horizontal drilling directly below a water supply tunnel without city authorization".

Being the guy responsible for the water quality, and then having any power to challenge a threat to it removed because Dick Cheney wanted to make sure no NIMBYs got in his friend's way, is fairly frightening.

The thing is, this stuff won't go away. At least if it were nuclear waste, it would naturally decay. But once they fill up a network of cracks with this stuff, in the exact geology where you know there's pressure from below, could result in a slow steady feed of it up through cracks and into the water, for decades. Or centuries. And you can inject it in, but you can't suck it out; no way to clean.

It's not unreasonable to study it further before using this technology near much-used watersheds like, well, all through densely-populated New York and Pennsylvania; part of the industry strategy has very, very clearly been to NOT study this issue so far.

Re:WTF?

[Andy Dodd]

Yup. 5-10 years of fracking has sickened more people than the entire history of civilian nuclear power. Maybe even pseudo-civilian power which lets you count Chernobyl.

The big difference here is:
Gas industry - "We have no problems. We are 100% safe. That contamination didn't happen. We're 100% safe." - In the past 5-10 years we have seen ZERO improvements to their operational techniques to improve safety and eliminate underground blowouts and spills.

Nuclear industry - "If we fuck up, bad shit's going to happen. Let's go to great lengths to prevent it from happening, and if we have a close call we'll immediately modify other plants to address it." - Even before Fukushima happened, plant designers decided that it COULD happen, as unlikely as it was, and addressed its failure modes in modern plant designs.

There's a constant evolution of safety in the nuclear industry, with core damage probabilities constantly moving downwards. There is no such evolution in the gas industry.

Drilling near me - HELL NO. Nuke plant upriver from me on the Susquehanna? - Sure, if it means no drilling and no coal plants!

I'll take living a mile from a nuke plant (especially a modernized one like an AP1000 or ESBWR) over 5 from a coal plant and anywhere downriver of a gas drilling site any day.