Facts on Fracking: Three Things You Need to Know
[Please, if you read this article, also read the comments. ed]
|
|
|
The natural gas boom in the US due to hydraulic fracturing
(fracking) has provided the country with a cleaner burning,
inexpensive fuel source that has lowered energy bills for
industrial facilities and homeowners alike. The fracking
process is still a hot topic of controversy wherever it is
used to extract fuel. Environmentalists claim it will ruin
watersheds and leave scars on the earth, and other concerns
range from flammable tap water to carcinogenic soil. Here
are just three things fracking won't do.
Fracking won't set your faucet on fire.
The 2010 documentary GasLand famously illustrates the
potential hazards of methane polluted water. In the film, a
homeowner holds a lit match up to his running tap water and
a burst of flame results. This homeowner's water is
contaminated with flammable methane. The film asserts the
pollution is the result of a nearby fracking operation, but
actually methane pollution can occur in wells which are
drilled into natural methane pockets. This was the situation
with the homeowner in the film, but by the time this was
established the connection between flammable tap water and
hydrofracking had already been made. The fact is, the
phenomenon of flammable water depicted in the film is not
restricted to areas where hydraulic fracturing is taking
place, but occurs wherever water wells encounter methane
pockets underground. This could happen literally anywhere,
and it is a result of poorly explored and drilled wells, not
fracking.
This is not to say that fracking has never caused such an
episode. Isolated incidents of pollution to freshwater wells
have been caused when drilling is done too close to the
surface, and natural gas companies have settled several
cases where damage is attributed to the gas wells.
The point is, however, that the horror story of the
flammable faucet is extremely uncommon. For one thing, the
drilling components used to trap the natural gas are encased
in steel and cement to prevent it from escaping. If the
casing is done properly, it is nearly impossible for methane
gas to escape. Also, fracking is done so far underground,
that escaped methane would have to travel through solid rock
in order to contaminate aquifers. There are reports that
this has happened due to problems like improperly cemented
boreholes. 16 families in Beaver County PA were affected by
such an incident. As a result, the drilling company was
fined over $1 million. Problems like this are rare, and can
be completely avoided by constructing and sealing equipment
properly.
Fracking won't cause earthquakes.
There are several claims around the country, and even around
the world, that fracking activity has spurred a number of
low-registering seismic disturbances. A recent study
released April 16, 2013 by Durham University found fracking
to be "not significant" in causing earthquake activity. The
study explains that seismic disturbances caused by hydraulic
fracturing are minimal. So small, in fact, that they would
only be detectable by the sensitive instruments used by
geoscientists.
It would be nearly impossible for hydraulic fracturing to
cause any major earthquakes unless drilling equipment were
to come into contact with a major fault line and somehow
cause the fault to release any built up energy it has
stored. A recent British study concluded exactly this. "The
fact is that court case after court case and study after
study have shown plainly that fears over earth tremors . . .
have no basis in fracking facts," summarizes Peter Glover of
The Commentator.
Fracking fluid isn't going to give you cancer.
What is that mysterious concoction being shot underground
into the shale rock, and how can it not be dangerous? Fears
over pollution and contamination of drinking water and the
environment from fracking fluid seem to stem from a lack of
information about what this rock-shattering mixture actually
is. The secret to fracking fluid is water and sand. Those
two components make up about 98% of the fluid mix. The
remaining 2% is composed of ingredients that are familiar to
many of us, such as citric acid, guar gum (a common food
additive, used to suspend the sand in the fluid), and even
common table salt. Currently, fracking is regulated at the
state level, and as such is exempt from the federal Clean
Water act, which would require all companies to disclose the
chemicals they use. Even so, some states have implemented
regulations requiring disclosure, and some companies list
their chemicals voluntarily. The information can be found
here.
Certainly not all of these chemicals are harmless to the
environment or to drinking water. But, the fracking industry
has a habit of recovering most of its fluid and recycling
it. This does not prevent every drop of fluid from being
spilled, but it certainly means that most of the material is
recovered. This saves the company doing the drilling money
as well as improving its environmental impact.
Like any method of recovering fossil fuels, hydraulic
fracturing does do damage to the environment. But, even
accounting for methane leakage during extraction, the total
carbon cost of natural gas is less than that of coal or oil.
The transition to natural gas for power generation in many
places has led to a drop in carbon emissions for the United
States. Since the world is not yet ready for 100% renewable
energy, natural gas could be a suitable energy source to
"bridge the gap" in the transition to truly renewable fuel.
For more information on how to obtain the lowest rates on
natural gas,
click here.
|
|
|
|
Readers Comments
Date |
Comment |
Murray Duffin
6.11.13 |
2%, "recovering most of it's
fluid"? Let's have some quantification, and a description of
where the unrecovered fluid goes. Also note that the major
center od suspectedearthquakes is not where the fracking is
done, but where the "recovered" water is disposed of deep
underground. This little article is just very poorly applied
white-wash. Murray
|
Fred Linn
6.11.13 |
--------" Even so, some states
have implemented regulations requiring disclosure, and some
companies list their chemicals voluntarily. The information can
be found here."-----------
Jessica Kennedy-----are you a complete IDIOT????
Go the list you have referenced...........everything listed
as "biocide" is a potent poison. That is what a biocide IS, a
poison.............it is a poison meant to kill
bacteria------------and in most cases, it is far harder to kill
bacteria than it is multicellular organisms, that would be
you----and everything else that you can see. From insects to
elephants.
In chemical and biological warfare with bacteria..........you
lose.
Under "corrosion inhibitors" go down to the drug store and
buy a bottle of Isopropyl alcohol.................you find it as
rubbing alcohol. Open the bottle and take a big drink. Come back
in about a week and tell us what pleasant evening you had.
Methanol is wood alcohol, VERY toxic stuff. It will make you
blind and cause seizures. It can also kill you in very small
amounts. You do not even need to drink it----methanol can be
absorbed into your system by skin contact and by inhaling fumes.
Petroleum distillates can do the same thing............with
the added bonus that many of them such as bezene, xylene and
tolouene can cause cancer in the liver, kidneys, and
lungs--------they do just as much damage going out as they do
going in.
Potassium tetraborate and Sodium tetraborate will chew holes
through you stomach and intestines. They are commonly used to
strip paint. But they would work even better on living cells.
Citric Acid 000077-92-9 Prevents precipitation of metal
oxides Iron Control Acetic Acid 000064-19-7 Prevents
precipitation of metal oxides Iron Control Thioglycolic Acid
000068-11-1 Prevents precipitation of metal oxides Iron Control
Sodium Erythorbate 006381-77-7 Prevents precipitation of metal
oxides Iron Control
Your body distributes oxygen from the lungs to the cells in
body using hemoglobin................hemo is greek meaning iron.
Ethyl Glycol----antifreeze. It tastes sweet. Every year,
hundreds of dogs die from licking glycol off of driveways and
garage floors where it has been spilled because of the sweet
taste. They die.
Sodium/Potassium Hydroxide-------lye.
None of these chemicals is something you want in your
drinking water.
Many of them, you don't even want to touch your skin or
breathe the fumes.
|
Albert Pope
6.11.13 |
Very diplomatic... but
accurate! Thank you for writing this article as I am tiring of
trying to make the same points politely during dinner
conversations!
|
Richard Vesel
6.11.13 |
And the truth lies somewhere
in between the article, and Fred Linn's alarmism.
Fred, unless you lead a 100% "organic lifestyle", most of the
things you use, or even ingest, have been manufactued with, or
treated with, toxic substances, which are then neutralized or
removed before you come in contact with them. Oh, wait, there is
one toxic substance that I bet you personally use GALLONS of
every single day, with only nominal safeguards. It goes for abou
$3.85 a gallon these days...
The societal benefits of being able to use methane v. coal or
oil for substantial energy needs is so great, it would be
sociopathic to deny access. However, the potential for damage
and abuse by the production industry is equally great. Whatever
shall we do to resolve the problem? (fakes wringing of hands...)
Adequate regulation, penalties with teeth, well-structured
vigilant monitoring of production techniques, areas,
coincidentally located air & water resources, and CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY for any and all harmfull breaches of any and all
production protocols. In that lies the potential for a win-win
situation, where natural gas fulfills its promise as THE bridge
fuel to a low-carbon economy, and where eventually, bio-methane
is produced in great quantity as a rewable fuel, direclty
utilizing atmospheric CO2 as its primary carbon source.
RWVesel
|
Fred Linn
6.11.13 |
----------" The societal
benefits of being able to use methane v. coal or oil for
substantial energy needs is so great, it would be sociopathic to
deny access. However, the potential for damage and abuse by the
production industry is equally great. Whatever shall we do to
resolve the problem? (fakes wringing of hands...)"------------
Richard, Richard, Richard..............................I buy
you books, and I buy you books.............and all you do is
tear out the pages.
You should know by now that I never take a position without a
complete alternate plan.
1) Fracking is not dependent on water. A fluid is required as
a transfer medium to transfer pressure hydraulically down the
drill hole. {fluids are not compressible} The fluid does not
have to be water............any fluid will do to transfer the
pressure hydraulically.
2) Propane is a gas under normal ambient conditions. Under
mild pressure however (50 psi) it is a fluid. You are familiar
with propane, LPG, it is used in camping lanterns, BBQ grills,
portable heaters----it has a thousand uses.
3) A thousand uses...........which include fracking. Propane
can be injected under pressure and used as the hydraulic
transfer medium. It is used with sand, and a gel(non toxic,
similar to the gel in self foaming shave
creams)-------------once the well is fracked, the propane
returns naturally with the natural gas outflow. This is possible
because propane is already a component of natural gas, that is
where it came from in the first place.
4) Use propane to frack for natural gas----there is no danger
of contamination because propane is almost insoluble in water.
If some should get in water supplies, simply letting the water
sit exposed to the atmosphere for awhile will allow both propane
and methane to diffuse off into the atmosphere---it does not
stay in the water. No water is used. Even if some water should
be exposed to propane and methane-----it is easily
eliminated(the same process that a fizzy soda goes flat when it
sets out over night.). No toxic chemicals are used. And the
propane is completely recaptured and reusable over and over
again.
Propane fracking is a mature, viable technology that is
commercially available and in use right now. Require that all
fracking be done with propane.
http://www.gasfrac.com/
Germany is producing close to 20% of their natural gas use by
anaerobic digestion. This is over 6 years ahead of their
original goal of producing that much by 2020----and in addition,
greatly increased demand due to use as a transportation fuel and
a replacement for nuclear power. And as a bonus---the by
products of CH4 production by anaerobic digestion are clean
water and compost, the most fertile soil you can get.
The German lesson is, IF we were to aggressively pursue AD
production of CH4, we can do that at low cost, using sewage,
agricultural and industrial waste and produce valuable side
products as well.....................all in a very short time
frame. All we need to do is do it.
|
Ferdinand E. Banks
6.12.13 |
Murray...Murray Duffin. Please
dont leave the room until you straighten certain people out. I
wrote a paper recently in which I mentioned a seminar that I had
attended at my University, remarking in that contribution that I
never thought I would hear anything like that in a Swedish
University,
Well, some strange things seem to be happening in this forum.
Need I say more Murray and Richard?
|
Richard Vesel
6.12.13 |
Fred - your second post is far
more balanced and reasonable. I agree with all poins there. Just
to clarify, there is no 100% solution, and propane, if not
available from local sources (such as coming from a local gas
separation unit for adjacent wells), well then the propane gel
solution is not cost effective. The water technology IS capable
of being well managed (no pun intended), and both technologies
should be acceptably safe. Using propane gels should allow for
reuse, and frankly, think all the fracking liquids would be
reusable, with some remedial treatment, as no chemical changes
occur during the process. Filter it, reconstitute it, and reuse
it, locally!
Biodigesters - yes, Germany has over 7000 of them. last I
read. USA needs to get onboard with this. The best fastest
driver isfor state legislatures to push RPS (renewable portfolio
standards) for their utilties, and the so-called free market
will at least have an incentive to move in that direction.
However, I see an entire industry, not based on waste-stream
reprocessing, but on primary fuel generation, through specially
bred bacteria that metabolize organic materials and literally
exude methanol and/or methane as their metabolic waste. Such
fuel farms can be run as adjuncts to existing agricultural
installations, or integrated with industrial & municipal
"processes" containing large organic streams, yes, including
wastewater. Current biodigesters require 400 tons of waste to
produce 1MW days worth of electricity. Not a great conversion
efficiency, but with appropriately designed bacteria, it could
be improved substantially - I am guessing at least 10-fold.
RWVesel
|
Fred Linn
6.12.13 |
It is already being done.
The town of Lunen[pop. 90,000] in northern Germany has a
dedicated biogas production and pipeline system that supplies
the entire city's energy needs. The raw material is sewage and
agricultural waste from livestock farms in the vicinity.
Conveyed and converted to methane in a central AD system. The
methane is scrubbed and fed into a distribution pipeline to a
distributed electrical and zone heating (combined heat and
power) using diesel generators located point of use. Methane is
also used to fuel vehicles on an expanding basis. There is
enough methane produced by this system to provide for all their
own needs, and enough left over to pump excess methane into the
national pipeline grid.
|
Len Gould
6.12.13 |
That's a smart sounding system
that you describe in Lunen, Fred. Question. Do you know if the
serviced customers pay all the costs, or is it a subsidized
demonstration? What costs to customers? |
Copyright © 2002-2013, CyberTech, Inc. - All rights reserved .http://www.energypulse.net
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2660
|