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

[Anonymous Coward]

Same bullshit argument, different day.
I grew up in a small town in the Pacific Northwest. The lion's share of the town's economy was tied to the forest products industry. The timber barons got rich, the rivers and streams got silted and polluted, the old growth forests were destroyed (and won't be back for centuries), and "the jobs" so loudly touted by those industry barons are long gone. On the whole, I'd say that was a lousy trade. The argument that the temporary economic boon is welcome despite the risks is laughable. That deal will make a few folks rich, and will eventually leave the community worse off than it is now (jobless and

poisoned. Think harder.

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.

Magic Formula

[atheos]

"Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage" Good luck with that. Food and beverage manufactures were required to list their "ingredients", and they sky didn't fall.

Re:WTF?

[drunkahol]

Fracking is just another tool in the arsenal of getting hydrocarbons from the ground. Doing it too close to underground wells, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. I would suggest that these cases come down to negligence on the part of the individual drilling company rather than an systematic failure of the process as a whole.

Re:Christian Science

[SirGarlon]

Actually, I'd encourage you to give the Christian Science Monitor a look. It is a well respected newspaper, certainly in the same league as major daily papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post, and has been around for about as long. Personally I think it beats the hell out of cnn.com and the like. You don't have to be Christian to like it. But judge for yourself.

Have other independent bodies endorsed fracking?

[Dr. Spork]

I personally tend to agree with this cautious endorsement, but because I live right on top of the Marcellus shale, my otherwise sane friends are freaking about about hydrofracking. I'd love to have an independent and evidence-based source to help me make sense of this. Don't tell me about Gasland and other anecdotal accounts. I'm finding that even I and other educated people don't have much of an idea just how typical Gasland-style anecdotes are, how much gas is won for each such case of methane leakage, and just how bad it is to get methane in your well water? Is this the sort of thing for which we have a filter?

Re:WTF?

[Syberz]

I'm not saying that the process doesn't work, I'm saying that whenever it's used it also contaminates the ground water. Even if you're careful, it's more than likely that you will contaminate the water so unless the odds improve, this tech should not be approved for use, even far from civilization as water is a more important resource than gas.

Mod Parent Up!

[0100010001010011]

CSM has amazing articles and unlike most of the drivel coming out of places these days is actually well written and researched. The "Christian" part throws a lot of people but it shouldn't.

Too fracking bad

[calzones]

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

Too fracking bad.

Besides, there's no need for secret competitive advantage when it comes to energy. They all rake in billions regardless. It's a natural resource and it's up to us to monitor how it's used. If you don't want to be in the lucrative energy business because you dislike the transparency that needs to accompany it, then you need to find another business to be in.

Easy solution: molecular tagging

[mcelrath]

Here's an easy solution: require oil companies to put trace additives that are uniquely identifiable into the chemicals they inject. (e.g. custom molecules that identify the oil company/well). Then if these chemicals are found in drinking water, lakes or streams, you know where they came from, and can issue a massive fine to the oil company and well owner. This way they can keep their fracking formula secret, and will self-police themselves to some extent as long as the fines are sufficiently large that it destroys any profit from breaking the rules.

There have to be a few chemists, oil guys, and political wonks reading. Do it.

Re:Easy solution: molecular tagging

[omglolbah]

That depends entirely on the trace material used to 'tag' the well.
The trace molecules would also have to be stable under high pressure, high temperature and in the presence of all the OTHER chemicals used in the fracking process.

I like the idea of tagging the chemicals like this but calling it an 'easy solution' is a bit misleading. It is an easy concept, but not that easy to implement in practice :(

"Transparency"... And its limits...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While transparency in public policy(and the contents of one's water supply) is generally better than the alternative, there is a very, very, important caveat:

Without accountability, and without means of redress(at least sufficient to be useful in practice, ie. typically not civil court for anybody who doesn't have substantial resources, and ideally sufficient to restrain, rather than merely punish, wrongdoing), transparency is basically just a PR stunt.

If it is wholly legal, or de-facto legal because nobody can afford to sue and wait a decade while the lawyers hash it out, to expose my water supply to fracking chemicals, it barely matters whether I get to know what is in them or not. If I do, writing that retrospective paper for the Journal of Epidemiological Toxicology will be a lot easier for some researcher. If I don't, I'll just have to live with the suspicion that my water's observable properties are alarming, and the local cancer rates seem high.

Short form: Impunity renders transparency irrelevant.

no, i mean GASLAND

[decora]

the film that causes gas industry PR people to shit bricks, because it shows several people, on film, setting their water on fire, and because it has interviews with people who have had the gas companies pay for their new water supplies (trucked in periodically), and because Josh Fox has discussed what happened to those people for daring to talk to him - the gas companies shut off their supply of water.

initimidation and persecution are not the tactics of an group that has the facts behind their cause.

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?

Re:WTF?

[Zerth]

And how do you heat your home in the winter?

Open the taps and light a match?

Re:WTF?

[GrumpySteen]

> Another major factor about "fracking" it has been around for decades since 1947 for gas and oil, the first official use is dated to 1903, Why worry about it now? Sounds like media scare tactics.

Asbestos was used for insulation since 1857 and the first usage of it goes back at least 4,500 years. Why worry about it now?

Radium-laced water was used to cure virtually everything around the start of the 20th century. Why worry about it now?

Thalidomide was used to combat morning sickness since 1957. Why worry about it now?

Maybe because we've actually learned that some of the things done in the past turned out to be staggeringly stupid and short sighted?

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.