US Rust Belt Manufacturing Rebounds Via Fracking Boom

schnell writes: A NY Times article reports that Midwestern "Rust Belt" towns and their manufacturing economies in particular have rebounded greatly due to the U.S. resurgence in fossil fuel production. This resurgence is driven by production of shale gas and natural gas from "fracking" and other new technologies that recover previously unavailable fuel but are more invasive than traditional techniques. "Both Youngstown and Canton are places which experienced nothing but disinvestment for 40 years." "They're not ghost towns anymore," according to the article. But while many have decried the loss of traditional U.S. manufacturing jobs in a globalized world and the associated loss of high-wage, blue collar jobs, do the associated environmental risks of new "tight oil" extraction techniques outweigh the benefits to these depressed economic regions?

Comments

Transition fuel

[mdsolar]

Fracking for natural gas seems to be happy with a price of $4/MMBTU so long as we treat it as a strategic fuel and don't link it up with the $10/MMBTU international market. So, it can support onshoring of manufacturing for a while. But, Midwest wind is selling power purchase agreements at essentially the fuel cost for natural gas generation using combined cycle power plants. The cost of wind is likely to fall further. So, natural gas may end up being just a foretaste of low cost energy boosting onshored manufacturing as renewable energy displaces it.

Re:Transition fuel

[Mr D from 63]

There will be no low cost energy, there will be no reserves. It's just a quick cash grab.

Not quite true. There is a huge supply that will last much longer than 4 years. But there will continue to be a cash grab.

Gas fracking is the big dog in the energy market right now, and driving down pricing in the electrical market. But below about $3.5/Mbtu, profitability drops below the point where it makes sense to add new extractions, so new development slows to a crawl. At the same time, gas fired generation steadily increases due to the low cost, thus the overall energy market dependance on nat gas increases. Once this dependency reaches a tipping point, the gas companies can raise prices significantly. This price spike will be temporary, as it will invite more extractions, and thus increase supply. So you will see a cyclic price pattern combined with some extreme spikes during periods of excessive demand (primarily very cold weather). The greater the dependency becomes, the bigger the cycles and spikes will become, with added uncertainly a periods of huge price spikes.

Fracking takes water out of action

[whereiswaldo]

This article tries to compare fracking water use to other uses (eg. golf courses) but fails to account for fracking water being taken out of the system - it's not recycled, it's disposed of. With lakes drying up or disappearing in California and other countries fighting over fresh water, how can the fracking industry be so wasteful?

Re:Fracking takes water out of action

[xdor]

In terms of the universe, you are probably correct.

However, I notice that pure combustion of methane gas yields carbon dioxide and water vapor (incomplete combustion yielding some nasty things like carbon monoxide). So all of this pulling of methane from underground and subsequent combustion: yields water vapor and a gas plants use to grow and thereby convert to CO2 to oxygen, which bound to hydrogen yields water.

So eventually, we will get the water back. And I'm not sure if the numbers work out (gallons of water polluted vs. amount of water vapor produced from millions of cubic feet of methane), but it seems there's a possibility, over time, we will actually have *more* water in circulation as a result.

Re:Excellent Question

[pastafazou]

It's been happening for 60 years now, and there have been zero deaths, and zero environmental disasters. Safer than nuclear, safer than coal, safer than wind turbines. Just because you used an expletive for emphasis in your closing sentence, doesn't mean you're right.