Interesting article on "Hydrofracking" and what it is and is not. This is only an over view but still informative. The author's name is withheld until the entire report is complete.
'In 2012, the extraction of gas and oil from shale formations in the US caused US output of crude oil to grow by the largest margin in US history. The shale boom has reduced the cost of natural gas per million cubic feet by 60% over the last 5 years. On October 3, 2013 the Wall Street Journal reported that the US is poised to pass Russia as the world's largest oil and gas producer. Millions of jobs in the petroleum and manufacturing industries have been created over the last five years thanks to hydrofracking. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that the US will be essentially energy independent by 2030.
'The US Energy Information Agency, (EIA) predicts that by 2017, the US will overtake Saudi Arabia & Russia to become the worlds largest global oil producer. Considering the generally poor economic conditions in the US, I hate to think how high unemployment would be if hydrofracking technology had not been developed!
'To say the least, there is a lot of controversy over hydrofracking, driven generally by opposition from environmental groups, although not all such groups oppose it. I had been aware of negative publicity about fracking, and anti-fracking movies such as Gas Land, and Promised Land. However, when I started researching the issue, I was amazed by the number of anti-fracking websites, and the vehemence of the opposition literature.
'I already had an extensive collection of studies and articles on hydraulic fracturing, and I started by studying them. The Energy Information Agency (EIA), perhaps the most reliable federal government energy website, had a wealth of data available. Web sites run by the states of Texas and Pennsylvania supplied policy documents, information on legal requirements, and what health departments and regulatory agencies were doing. The amount of data available from just these two states is overwhelming!
'I found that most environmentalist complaints fell into two categories:
(1) Claimed leaks of methane at the wellhead, and (2) Claims that hydrofracking contaminates drinking water sources. Recent studies have largely refuted claims of excess loss of methane to the atmosphere, at least in more recent operations. Although I have no doubt that in the early 1980s, when the technology was still being developed, gas wells were not as closely monitored and controlled as they are at present.
That drilling and hydrofracking operations have caused drinking water contamination, is the most serious claim, and one that is most often presented in anti-fracking literature. Interestingly, the issue of drinking water contamination, is where the evidence for a problem is the weakest.
Both Texas and Pennsylvania, maintain good records of the depths at which hydrofracking takes place, and of the composition of the fracking fluids. In addition, both states maintain open public records of many thousands of drinking water well tests, performed both before and after, drilling and fracking operations.
In both the Marcellous and Barnett shales, the majority of the gas wells are developed between 5,000 to 8,000 feet deep, with the shallowest being at 4,500 feet deep. In comparison, the deepest water wells, are around 1,500 feet deep, with the great majority being at 500 feet or less. It is unlikely that either gas or hydraulic fracturing fluids would be able to migrate from the fracking depths to the surface.
There is, of course, always the possibility of surface contamination during the well drilling and fracking operations, but these sources of potential contaminants are no different that normal oil drilling operations. Federal and state regulators not to mention environmental groups pay close attention to all aspects of drilling operations. '
No comments:
Post a Comment