Hydrofracking : Energy Independence for America (Part 3)

Here is the third installment on Hydrofracking which will continue the discussion of just where we are headed on the new wave of energy production in America, and the true impact on the environment. The fourth and final installment will finish this informative report.

What Is the Composition of Hydrofracking Fluids?
by Darrell Mattheis 

Knowing the composition of hydrofracking fluids has long been a primary concern of environmental advocates, as many of them believe that hydrofracking fluids can, and have, contaminated surface water deposits.

 However, given the depth at which most shale deposits are found, 6-7,000 feet, it is unlikely that fracking fluids could rise through the many layers of rock to reach surface waters.

 The most likely source of any contamination of surface waters is from defective drill casings in the first 1500 feet of the well.

 The petroleum/natural gas industry is required, in most areas, by state regulations to reveal fracturing and production data within 6 months following execution, which data is eagerly picked up by US competitors all around the world!

 In response to demands from regulators, and in the interest of public transparency, the natural gas industry has established several formats where information concerning the composition of a hydrofracking  fluid can be determined on-line.  One of the most valuable sources is the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry.

 

The FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry

This website contains information on:

A. the process of hydraulic fracturing, how it works,
B. Chemical use,
C. Ground-water protection regulations, by state,
D. A way to find data on a particular well, by state, 
E. Frequently asked questions. 

For anyone interested in obtaining information about the fracking process in general or knowledge about a particular well this is a valuable resource. http://fracfocus.org/hydraulic-fracturing-how-it-works/hydraulic-fracturing-process

 

Why Is The Environmental Community Opposed to Hydrofracking?
Across the USA a large percentage of the environmental community is adamantly opposed to the process of Hydrofracking!  Over the last 40 years, millions of hydrofracking operations have been performed on wells with a virtually perfect record for human and environmental safety.

 Major Sources of Environmentalist Complaints

(1) Claimed leaks of methane at the wellhead.
(2)  Claims that hydrofracking contaminates ground water.

In any deep well drilling operation there is always a chance that poorly implemented environmental controls may cause surface contamination.  Likewise, poorly implemented or defective casing work on drilled wells may allow some methane leaks. 

But state and federal regulations thoroughly cover such potential problems. Penalties applied by both the federal and state regulators to drilling operators who violate the rules are stringent.  And of course the threat of law suits against violators is always a reality.

Those groups claiming that significant amounts of methane escape at the wellhead, typically base their complaints on a 2011 article in Climatic Change. 

Written by Robert Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea, this article claims that "3.6 percent to 7.9 percent of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. 

Therefore, it is claimed, the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas is greater than that for conventional oil and gas, over any time period.

 This article has however, been thoroughly debunked by many other researchers, including Cornell University's Lawrence Cathles, who argue that Howarth et.al., have significantly overestimated the methane emissions from unconventional gas extraction.

 Improved well head and completion equipment has sharply reduced the release of methane. Under pressure from both the industry and regulators, improvements in equipment used to drill, hydrofrack and complete a well have undergone significant improvements designed to prevent the release of methane.

 A study recently released (9-16-13 ) from the University of Texas looked at methane emissions directly at the wellhead during completion operations.  This study found that the majority of hydraulically fractured well completions sampled during the study had equipment in place that reduced methane emissions by 99%.

 Because of this equipment, methane emissions from well completions are 97% lower than the 2011 estimates made by EPA.

This study also found that other parts of the hydrofracturing process had much higher releases of methane.

 This study a partnership between the University of Texas at Austin, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),  found that the total methane emissions, from all sources measured in the study, (for natural gas production) were comparable to the most recent EPA estimates.

 Claims that Hydrofracking Contaminates Ground Water

These claims, to the extent that they allege that hydraulic fracturing, rather than the normal sources of potential contamination around an well drilling operation, caused the contamination, have not been substantiated.

The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a state entity, overseen by a board of university professors and politicians, commissioned the Penn State Marcellus Center for outreach and Research to take a series of baseline water samples of private wells and springs in areas where drilling was taking place. 

The university's conclusion was that samples were approximate to samples it took five years prior. and found "No statistically significant increases in methane levels after drilling"

The Penn State researchers found that 20% of the wells originally tested, five years prior to the start of drilling and hydrofracking, had elevated background levels of methane and biological contaminants.  The latest tests on those same wells confirmed that levels of contaminants had not increased.

However, tests performed on wells prior to the beginning of drilling and hydrofracking, showed that 40 percent of rural wells tested, had some sort of pre-existing health related concerns.

All across Pennsylvania, tens of thousands of baseline tests have been performed prior to drilling and fracking in the Marcellous, as energy companies take steps to protect themselves from law suits alleging contaminated drinking water due to drilling activity.

Data collected during these tests must be shared with the landowners, and with the state of Pennsylvania.  Public health officials hope that information collected in these tests can be used to improve ground water quality by exposing preexisting contaminants.

The depths at which typical hydrofracking is performed, 6-7,000 feet deep, and the depth of the deepest drinking water wells, at 1,500 feet, are so far apart it is highly unlikely contamination could migrate 5-6,000 feet.

Thanks to modern recording technology, we have many accurate records of the depths of the thousands of wells drilled in the Barnet and Marcellous Shales.  A scale comparison with the surface drinking water wells shows just how far apart they are.

Anti fracking Movies, GasLand and Promised Land  are full of false claims, exaggerations, and total lies!  These films are little more than crude environmentalist propaganda, but in the absence of anything to counter them, they have had an adverse impact on the public's opinion of fracking.

 A recently released documentary on hydrofracking, FrackNation, put together by journalists Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney to document the distortions of the anti-fracking lobby is worth seeing.

 The rational of most of the environmentalist opposition to hydraulic Fracturing goes back to the thesis of Man Made Global Warming (MMGW). In recent years, doubts have been raised about the accuracy of the climate models upon which claims of MMGW are based, and, the honesty of the data used by the UN's IPCC.

Radical Environmentalists want to stop the use of any hydrocarbon: coal, oil or natural gas for energy production

Some parts of the Environmental community have an ideological agenda that calls for the total elimination of any hydrocarbon containing source of energy, and its replacement with renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.

 Natural Gas Is Greener!

Thanks to the greatly increased use of natural gas in the US,  greenhouse -gas emissions in the US are the lowest they have been for 20 years.  Natural gas emits half as much carbon dioxide for each kilowatt of energy generated as coal.

 By the end of 2013, the Chinese will be emitting twice as much CO2 as the US.  For the last seven years China has been adding more than a gigawatt of new coal power EACH WEEK!  The Chinese currently derive 70% of their electricity from burning coal.

 This means that future warming predicted by the UN IPCC, if it comes, will  not be from the US or other developed countries, but primarily from China, India and the rest of the developing world.

 Ultimately, the only way to limit the growth of CO2 emissions in the developing world is to reduce the use of coal. The development of shale gas resources through the use of hydraulic fracturing, is the only way this is going to happen!

 Supporters Of  Renewable Energy In the environmental community, and the current US Administration, have pushed wind and solar sources of electricity as the solution to MMGW. 

 The problems with renewable energy, in general, are three  fold:

(1.)  The low energy density of wind and solar,
 (2.)  Renewable energy requires large amounts of natural resources, particularly, land,
(3.)  It will be many decades, and many billions of dollars, before renewable sources of energy are anywhere close to meeting even minimal electricity needs of the US or the Western World.

A reliance on wind and solar has led to the construction of new coal burning electrical generating plants in Germany to meet growing energy needs.