Hydraulic Fracturing

[philunderwood]

It's better in original form:

www.qando.net/?tag=hydrolic-fracturing

[philunderwood]

Plentiful Fuel

By John Stossel

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

I just learned I'm going to save money! My apartment building in New York will switch from heating oil to cleaner natural gas. Gas is much cheaper than oil now because energy companies found ways to get more of it out of the ground.

Even more astounding is that by using this technique, America won't run out of natural gas for 100 years or more! Time to break out the Champagne?

Not so fast, say environmentalists. To get gas out of the ground, companies use pressurized chemicals to blow up rock. It's called hydraulic fracturing — fracking. An Oscar-nominated movie, "Gasland," says that fracking contaminates our water supply with chemicals. In the movie, some homeowners set their tap water on fire.

That got my attention. I've seen Michael Moore's movies and environmental documentaries, which I thought were nonsense. But "Gasland" is more convincing.

Unfortunately, "Gasland" producer Josh Fox turned down my interview requests, as did representatives of the big national environmental groups that oppose fracking. I think I know why. The movie and the left's arguments against fracking are deceitful.

First, the movie implies that nasty chemicals get into the water table. That seems logical, since they shoot them down into gas wells. But it turns out that the shale gas wells are thousands of feet below the water table. Do the chemicals flow up — against gravity?

But then what's the explanation for the most dramatic part of the movie: tap water so laden with gas that people can set it on fire?

It turns out that has little to do with fracking. In many parts of America, there is enough methane in the ground to leak into people's well water. The best fire scene in the movie was shot in Colorado, where the filmmaker is in the kitchen of a man who lights his faucet. But Colorado investigators went to that man's house, checked out his well and found that fracking had nothing to do with his water catching fire. His well-digger had drilled into a naturally occurring methane pocket.

"There are lots of … naturally causing effects that occur," says Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation, a think tank in Pennsylvania — where much of the film was shot. "It's really no surprise. We find that 40 percent of the wells in Pennsylvania have some sort of naturally occurring methane gas and other types of things."

John Hanger, former director of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, who also appeared in the film, is less sanguine:

"Gas can migrate … from poor drilling into people's private water wells. … We have had gas move from poorly done gas drilling through the ground and reach people's water wells. So there is a need for oversight … gas does have some impacts. It is not perfectly clean. But compared to coal and oil, which are more dirty fossil fuels, natural gas can be produced and consumed in a manner that is cleaner than coal."

Filmmaker Josh Fox concedes that the states concluded that the fire wasn't caused by fracking, but he says the government regulators collude with industry, or don't use good science. His movie portrays Hanger as an indifferent bureaucrat. Hanger says the movie is just inaccurate. "Josh Fox has a mission. … He is trying to shut down the gas — drilling industry."

Frankly, I'm skeptical of all of them: lefty moviemakers who smear companies, companies with economic interests at stake and the regulators, who are often cozy with industry and lack essential knowledge. The surest environmental protectors are property rights — and courts that assign liability to polluters.

But hydraulic fracturing is a wonderful thing. It's not new. Companies have done it for 60 years, but now they've found ways to get even more gas out of the ground. That's the reason gas is getting cheaper and panicky politicians no longer rant about America "running out of fuel."

Natural gas is not risk-free, but no energy source is. Perfect is not one of the choices.

[Ritty77]

Another fair and balanced article from FOX News.

Many Remain Fractured on Fracking, Even as Texas Passes Disclosure Law
By John Roberts
Published June 20, 2011 | FoxNews.com

It’s considered the home of the oil and gas industry, so it’s of special significance that Texas Governor Rick Perry has signed a law requiring drillers to disclose the chemicals in their so-called “fracking” fluids.

Hydraulic fracturing has led to a new energy boom in America. Hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas locked up in shale in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and other states is now being tapped.

Ten years ago, it looked like the U.S. was running out of natural gas and would have to increase imports. Now there is so much of it that terminals built to accept gas from overseas are being converted to export it.

But the fracturing process has been fraught with controversy.

Faulty well casings have allowed natural gas to contaminate aquifers. And several high-profile spills of fracking fluid – the most recent in April in Pennsylvania – have fueled protests against drilling.

The spills are important, because while fracking fluids are 98% water, they also include thousands of gallons of potentially harmful chemicals – which aid the fracturing process – prevent corrosion – and inhibit the growth of algae and bacteria in the well.

Maryland’s Attorney-General has sued the company responsible for the April incident – Chesapeake Energy - because Towanda creek, which the fluid spilled into, empties into the Susquehanna River and ultimately, Chesapeake Bay.

Pennsylvania has recently required drilling companies to disclose the chemicals in their fracking fluid, but the state doesn’t post individual well data publicly. Wyoming and Arkansas have similar regulations.

Some companies, including Chesapeake and Range Resources, voluntarily disclose chemicals in their fluid in either well completion reports on the website RangerResources or on the joint state/industry website FracFocus.

The Texas law ups the ante – in part, because the industry supported it. But the gas companies are not dummies. There are billions of dollars at stake developing a resource that could produce for a hundred years or more. Opposition to fracking is bad for business.

Keeping the chemicals in the frac fluid a secret only fuels suspicion and more opposition.

Not only that, but thanks to the 2005 Energy Policy Act, hydraulic fracturing remains outside the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The industry isn’t exactly clamoring for new federal regulations, and found disclosure to be preferable to a new push for federal oversight.

The Texas law also allows drillers to withhold information about certain chemicals in their frac fluids if the company declares them to be proprietary.

Companies still have significant leeway to protect their competitive advantage and the public still doesn’t get the whole story – (though landowners who lease to gas companies can get around the proprietary shield to find out what’s being used on their land).

For that reason, environmental groups have only mild applause for the Texas bill. They say it’s a good start, but contains significant loopholes.

It also would not be implemented until 2013, which they believe is too long for no good reason.

Meantime, some companies – which at one time used diesel fuel to help crack wells - are working to make their frac fluids more environmentally friendly.

Range Resources CEO John Pinkerton told me on a visit to his company’s wells in Pennsylvania that his ultimate goal is come up with a non-toxic formula that truly is "green."

“As an industry,” he told me, “one of the things we are trying to do is lessen the use of chemicals that we put in these frac jobs. We’ve gotten our fracs up here to three simple chemicals that are household chemicals that we use every day. And they’re being used in such a diluted form that they would have no issue in terms of human consumption whatsoever.”

Gas companies are acutely aware that bad publicity could shut them down.

New York state has imposed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing pending an environmental review, keeping thousands of acres of potentially lucrative leases off-limits.

The industry appears to have learned a big lesson from the BP disaster last year. Namely, that tighter regulations – like the new Texas law – are an acceptable tradeoff to keep bad players out of the market and enhance best practices.

Industry analyst Amy Meyers Jaffe of the Baker Center at Rice University agrees.

“The balance has to come on regulation,” she says. “If we learned something from the Macondo [BP] accident last year, it is that if you have the proper regulation, you can avoid something that will stop drilling altogether.”

Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/20/texas-fracking-law/#ixzz1PrINtwGE

[Ritty77]

Yet Another 'Fracking' Story on the Front Page: NYT Again Hits 'Reckless' Natural Gas Extraction

www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2011/20110701013503.aspx


NYTimes Critics Vindicated: Public Editor Dresses Down Dubious Article Critical of Natural Gas Industry

newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2011/07/18/nytimes-critics-vindicated-public-editor-dresses-down-dubious-article-c#ixzz1SToqEh6k

[philunderwood]

Guess which article the radical environmentalists will remember and quote as evidence of proof of their side’s arguments.

[leisuresuitlarry]

www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/391552/july-11-2011/anti-frack-attack?xrs=share_copy

[philunderwood]

Frack to the Future

By John Stossel

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Celebrities are now upset about fracking, the injection of chemicals into the ground to crack rocks to release oil and gas. With everyone saying they want alternatives to foreign oil, I'd think celebrities would love fracking.

I'd be wrong. Lady Gaga, Yoko Ono and their group, Artists Against Fracking, don't feel the love. Yoko sang, "Don't frack me!" on TV.

Stopping fracking is the latest cause of the silly people. They succeeded in getting scientifically ignorant politicians to ban fracking in New York, Maryland and Vermont.

Hollywood gave an Oscar to "Gasland," a documentary that suggests fracking will shove gas into some people's drinking water, so the water will burn. It's true that some water contains so much natural gas that you can light it.

But another documentary, "FrackNation," shows that gas got into plumbing long before fracking came. There's gas in the earth. That's why it's called "natural gas." Some gets into well water. Environmental officials investigated the flames shown in "Gasland" and concluded that the pollution had nothing to do with fracking.

"FrackNation" director Phelim McAleer tried to confront "Gasland" director Josh Fox about this, but Fox wouldn't answer his questions. Instead, he demanded to know whom McAleer works for. He also turned down my invitations to publicly debate fracking. Many activists don't like to answer questions that don't fit their narrative.

Even some homeowners who filed a lawsuit claiming that their water was poisoned by fracking weren't happy to learn that their water is safe. I'd think they would be delighted, but "FrackNation" shows a couple reacting with outrage when environmental officials test their water and find it clean.

The real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense. Fracking lowered the price of natural gas so much that Americans heat our homes for less, and manufacturing that once left America has returned. For those concerned about global warming, burning gas instead of oil or coal reduces CO2 emissions.

"Skeptical Environmentalist" author Bjorn Lomborg points out that "green" Europe promised to reduce emissions, but "only managed to cut half of what you guys accidentally happened to do when you stumbled on fracking."

Still, the process sounds dangerous. It requires chemicals and explosions. So fracking is now scapegoated for the usual litany of things that peasants feared when threatened with curses centuries ago: livestock dying, bad crop yields, children born with deformities.

None of it is backed by scientific evidence. Even environmentalists who usually are too cautious (by my standards) see little danger. President Obama's first EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, told Congress that the EPA cannot show "that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater."

One of the more outlandish fears is that fracking will cause earthquakes. Silly people at MSNBC say fracking creates "a skyrocketing number of earthquakes." Yes, cracking rocks does cause vibrations. But then, so does construction with dynamite or jackhammers — not to mention trucks on the highway.

Time and again, as humans make a good-faith effort to find new, cleaner ways to produce the energy a growing population needs, environmentalists find a reason — often very small or non-existent — that makes the new method unacceptable.

They say coal is dirty and normal oil production might overheat the planet. Hydroelectric dams kill fish. Nuclear plants could suffer meltdowns. Windmills kill birds.

Some won't be happy unless we go back to what we did before industrialization: burn lots of trees and die young.

Nothing is completely risk-free. Companies make mistakes. Chemical spills happen.

But those risks are manageable. They are also far preferable to the risk of paying more for energy — thereby killing opportunities for the poor.

So far, most regulators outside New York, Maryland and Vermont have ignored the silly people. So thanks to fracking, Americans pay less for heat (and everything else), the economy is helped, new jobs get created, we create less greenhouse gas, and for the first time since the 19th century, America may become a net exporter of energy.

Good things happen if the silly people can't convince all politicians to ban progress.