The plummeting price of natural gas, which can be used to make a vast number of products, including tires, carpet, antifreeze, lubricants, cloth, and many types of plastic, is luring key industries to the United States.
The impact of cheap natural gas on manufacturing could extend beyond the production of various chemicals. Using natural gas as an energy source, rather than a chemical feedstock, could significantly lower costs for manufacturers who use a lot of energy, such as steel makers. (The steel industry is booming already for another natural gas-related reason—it’s supplying gas producers with pipes.) What’s more, cheap natural gas is prompting a shift away from petroleum based-fuels for trucking. Some companies are switching to trucks that burn natural gas directly. Eventually, even diesel trucks could be using fuel made from natural gas.
With a solid base of cheap fuel, energy, chemicals and even steel and a consequent expansion of manufacturing in the US, we have the very real potential of economic recovery. Besides the manufacturing jobs directly resulting from those developments, all of the supporting businesses and industries could see employment rising right along side.
The benefits of fracking are many, it’s safe and even lowers carbon emissions. However, as with everything these days, critics abound and a recent film starring expert geologist, Matt Damon and partially funded by Image Media Abu Dhabi, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Media, wholly owned by the government of the UAE tries to make fracking appear dangerous. I wonder why.
On the other hand, if you want to see a film about fracking that looks at it without the Hollywood slant, check out FrackNation set to premiere on January 22 at 9 p.m. ET on AXS TV.
Shale gas is one of the brightest developments in the US in a very long time. With cheaper fuel, energy, chemicals, steel and all of the products made with those materials plus the potential for a real boost in employment, there could be more money in more pockets and a resurgence across the entire economy. Motorcycle manufacturing in this country would directly benefit from all of those things, but even if they design gorgeous new bikes with new technology and create the most effective marketing campaign imaginable, like so many manufactured products, they depend heavily on our economic well being and lower unemployment before customers will feel confident enough to spend a few dollars on something as discretionary as a new bike. If shale gas production continues to expand, we could have a real boom on our hands and there are more than a few manufacturers who can hardly wait to see that happen.
Link: Technology Review
Peter says
Fracking is safe? You should maybe do some research on that- talk to the folks living with it and then tell us if you’d let them drill on your property. How much of our country should we destroy for cheap fuel?
Paul Crowe says
I live in Pennsylvania with fracking all around us. The folks who don’t like fracking are earnest in their opposition, but sadly lacking in facts.
JP Kalishek says
heh, the issue though is why many are opposed. Sure, some actually believe every bad thing said about most anything, but some just seem to really hate anything like human progress.
Now&Zen says
The only one here sadly lacking in the ‘ Facts ‘ Mr Crowe is yourself . I lived in the midwest up until 10/12 and have seen first hand the extensive damage that was done due to fracking . Simply put , even the supporters and advocates of fracking willingly admit they do not know what all the consequences … both long a short term … of fracking are or will be . Nor are they willing to give any guarantees on their actions : but rather continue to attempt to veil everything they do behind a raft of smoke & mirrors . Stick to the M/C’s and leave science engineering and environment to the experts Paul .. because on those subjects you are well and truly out of your league
Paul Crowe says
Can you give specific examples of the extensive damage?
Cal H says
Please explain the recent NY State Department of Public Health report which found fracking to be generally safe.
JP Kalishek says
I’m in Texas, and the only valid complaints we get here about fracking is the noise. Rigs make a ton of noise until the drill and splice into the pipeline is done. otherwise all that whinging and moaning have proven false, or of suspect origins (I find it hilarious that the “environmentalist” Damon is being backed by the nation who’s economy would be most affected by our fracking as they supply the world CNG. Others are backed by OPEC nations). Would I or Mr. Crowe want a well on our land? I bet his answer is the same as mine..Oh Yes, yes we would!
Matt "Hypemann" Herrmann says
Fracking once is safe, fracking repeatedly can cause fissures that connect with abandoned mine shafts, natural fissures in the rock, and can eventually leech into the water table. See businessweek for some decent coverage on the topic:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/frack-secrets-by-thousands-keep-u-dot-s-dot-clueless-on-wells
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/fracking/slideshow.html
Given the oil & gas industry’s recent failures in regards to safety, it’s not surprising that fracking is facing criticism.
However, the larger issue for me is this: What do we do when shale gas runs out? We’re attempting these costlier and more risky enterprises to preserve a system that has run its course, and is not feasible in a long term, larger scale setting. We’re not fracking as a stop gap until we can advance more efficient vehicles and technologies. In fact, oil & gas companies have helped to lobby against MPG requirements and other moves that would encourage more developments in efficiency.
Paul Crowe says
“What do we do when shale gas runs out?”
Well, I don’t know, but estimates of reserves say the supply of shale gas is huge, enough for close to 100 years, though no one can say with complete accuracy. However, the same could have been asked about every form of energy we’ve been using. Oil was predicted to have been gone by now, though, amazingly, we still have quite a bit, even with warnings of its imminent exhaustion. As far as that goes, we have enormous coal reserves still in the ground which we are shifting away from because of cheap shale gas and because the EPA decided to make it hard for us to keep using it.
I’m pretty confident that well before 100 years down the road we’ll have other energy sources well developed and shale gas will keep us running in the meantime.
Matt 'Hype Mann' Herrmann says
We both know those estimates are “pie in the sky” optimism when they come from an oil company and “mayan apocalypse” from an environmentalist. I doubt the fields will last 100 years, namely because those estimates don’t take into account population and user growth.
However, I do know that the cheaper a consumable is, the less likely we are to use it efficiently. Beyond that, why would a company flood the market and lower its own prices? More likely we’ll see oil and gas companies sit on their reserves and stabilize prices while they play the futures market ad make a financial killing. Lastly, how can new efficient products and services come to the market if the technology is being surpressed?
Why wait one hundred years to have cheaper, cleaner energy, cleaner air and water, and a better economy?
GenWaylaid says
Scientific American did a few good overview articles on fracking safety over a year ago (teaser here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-about-fracking). The conclusion I recall is that groundwater contamination thus far seems to be about the same as in older, pre-fracking natural gas fields and is more likely to be caused by problems with the bore lining where it pierces the water table rather than the fracking process.
However, the large amount of water and specialty chemicals required for fracking, as well as the typical practice of storing the contaminated water returned from the well in open ponds, do raise some concerns for me. There’s already considerable interest in finding ways to clean and re-use fracking fluids. The potential savings for well operators from sending the same fluid through the well multiple times makes me hopeful that a closed-cycle process for fracking fluid will become popular in the future.
Mike Knapp says
There’s over 350,000 gas and oil wells in Pennsylvania. 14,000 in my county alone. The Matt Damon movie mentioned above was filmed 2 minutes from my house, in the middle of a massive gas field with wells all over the place. Pretty ironic, huh? There is some disruption during the drilling phase (nothing unbearable), and then the wells sit there for 50-100 years, silently sipping gas from the ground like a giant straw, and putting it into a underground pipeline where it goes right into your house.
Oldyeller says
Fracking? I’m still dubious of it. I guess it all depends on the people using the technology. Here in Canada it doesn’t seem that safe as it is polluting/damaging the environment. But who cares about people, wildlife and the planet as long as we have fuel and make boat-loads of cash.
Paul Crowe says
Do you have concrete, specific examples of the pollution and damage and if so, how they occurred? The people who support fracking live in the same places everyone else does. Opponents often say proponents hate the environment and don’t care about pollution, which is nonsense, but many listen to those opponents, who sound very passionate and well versed, but when you look a little deeper, you find nothing there.
There have been instances of spills of fracking fluid by a few shoddy drillers, which has nothing to do with the process itself and with reasonable care and regulation, fracking works very well and is very safe.
The tales of water that catches fire usually leaves out the fact that the water did that before the fracking took place. Those towns named Burning Springs didn’t get those names recently.
B50 Jim says
Fracking has its drawbacks but I believe it can be done safely — the main opposition is from areas where the fracking chemicals can get into the ground water. But most gas-bearing strata are below the water tables and so far it looks safe enough to inject chemicals down there. The technology is also advancing rapidly and uses fewer hazardous chemicals; I’ve read that water-only fracking is a strong possibility. Some small earthquakes have been reported resulting from fracking, but they are localized and not severe.
I’m not surprised the UAE opposes our increased production of energy — they are looking at their reserves shrinking and already are seeing wells dry up. They’re on the downside and could soon need to import energy. Their economy relies on exporting energy, and if they need to begin importing it, they will be in trouble. As a modern Arab proverb goes: “My father rode a camel. I drive an automobile. My son flies a jet plane, and my grandson… will ride a camel.” Those of us who remember the trauma of the first Arab oil embargo during the 70s can feel some ironic satisfaction.
Anyway, natural gas is our best bet for “clean” fuel. Environmentally better overall, it’s safer to transport in pipelines than the toxic crude-oil soup that causes so much trouble when a pipeline breaks. It can be made to burn much cleaner than liquid fuels (far fewer “extra” ingredients that don’t contribute to making power), and makes good fuel for diesel or spark-igniton engines. LNG or CNG is as safe to handle as liquid fuels and has been in use for decades so it’s not mysterious. Style-wise, a motorcycle could carry the tanks in much the same places they carry fuel now, hidden under bodywork. I understand that with fracking, the United States has a huge energy reserve. Still, we should continue exploring alternative forms of energy because fossil fuels are limited even though we keep finding more of them. I still think research into EVs should go ahead; better batteries benefit everyone from tradesmen with portable tools to urban riders on quiet, non-polluting scooters.
Recent statistics show that the United States is now a net energy exporting nation. That’s a big change that can only benefit our economy and the world’s economy in the bargain. What a difference….
onespeedpaul says
Here’s a great example: the Bayou Corne sink hole. Before I am dismissed, the mine that caused the sinkhole was not fracked for natural gas per se, but the process for mining there was fracking like in pennsylvania and elsewhere.
http://io9.com/5967858/the-bayou-corne-sinkhole-a-massive-oil-and-gas-disaster-youve-probably-never-heard-of/gallery/1
Paul Crowe says
Never heard of it and it looks like a mess, but I’m a bit unclear on the connection to this discussion, perhaps you could explain.
NextVoiceUHear says
Firstly, the correct term is “hydraulic fracturing.” Your use of the pejoritive term “fracking” connotes negativity and expresses tacit (and offensive) buy-in to the UN Agenda 21 anti-energy bunch. Many of these Progressive Liberals have already responded above with the usual shrill Talking Points.
Secondly, Matt Damon is a hack actor. I only hope your descriotion of him as [rolling eyes] an “expert geologist” was tongue-in-cheek.
BTW, if this comment makes it through your annoyingly inscrutable Captcha process I will be amazed.
NVUH
Paul Crowe says
Fracking has been the shorthand slang for the process for a long time, but you’re right, because of overuse by its opponents it’s taken on a pejorative connotation.
Those Captchas are just normal everyday inscrutable, if you find them annoying, you need to free your mind, use the force and sense the solution. 🙂
B*A*M*F says
The lack of transparency is what troubles me most about hydraulic fracturing. An MSDS should be available regarding what’s being put in the ground.
The process makes sense, but there are plenty of places it could go wrong if not done properly. Again, the drillers and producers invoking proprietary technology rather than transparency is a problem.
With decent disclosure about chemicals being used, and practices employed, I think it could be a very productive and safe source of energy. As the process is used right now, it’s highly questionable in terms of safety and environmental impact.
Paul Crowe says
There has been a lot more disclosure as more have raised the issue. Here’s one site with a list of chemicals used by various companies, not all are used at once, but some combination from that list, though I don’t know if there are others.
Ola says
First of all, there is currently nothing forcing the fracking operators to disclose any of the chemicals they use (even to authorities) as long as it’s part of a “proprietary compound”, so the incentive to provide a complete list of agents used in fracking is low. A large one of them, however, is diesel fuel, and since up to 70% of fluids used for fracking remain in the ground, that is one source of a decidedly harmful substance that can end up in the groundwater table. Of the around 750 substances included in fracking fluid that have actually been disclosed by operators, 29 are known carcinogens.
Further, it has been established that some of the fluid used does indeed end up polluting water wells, since certain non-naturally occuring substances have been found in water sources subsequently to nearby fracking operations.
Here is well researched article providing more information:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/how-the-epa-linked-fracking-to-contaminated-well-water/
Ola says
A recent follow up on the original article, confirming the initial conclusion that water pollution is indeed occuring.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/epa-fracking-investigation-in-wyoming-revisited-after-objections/
Tom Lyons says
Perhaps it might reduce demand for gasoline, if other fuels become prevalent.
That might reduce the price of gasoline for the rest of us.
And it might even help motorcycling and other motor sports.
I’m not even going to discuss the “environment” issues about “whether it should be done”.
The fact is that it IS being done, and plentiful fuels might possibly help motorcycling and motoring, as well as the entire economy in general.
Sid says
So, you’re saying you got your blinders on straight?
“It” (insert fracking or whatever) is being done and I as an intelligent human must stay the course.
Tom Lyons says
Nope.
I, as an intelligent human, recognize politically-motivated canards when I see them, and don’t plan to give them any attention.
Darran Wilson says
I do A/V work and very many oil and gas conferences. I’ve been in the closed door meetings where the leaders of the oil/gas industry discuss trends, technology, laws…etc. Having been in MANY of these conferences/meetings I’ve heard some amazing things. Technology that will change the world. The fact that in 5 years the oil/gas industry will be Greener than any other technology, cause it will make them tons of money. Oil plants that will capture carbon (which FOX tells you Carbon Cap laws kill the industry) and feed it to alge tanks to create biodiesel. Gasification generators that burn anything and are zero carbon footprint. Oil execs telling people to ignore FOX cause it’s all lies. Things you would never imagine. I also witnessed a room of people ask one of the top experts on fracking if it could have caused earth quakes. His response ” uh uh?”. The day before Fukushima one of the top Nuclear experts preaching how safe the technology is. Oil execs PRAISING green laws. Everything in the media is a lie, on both sides. What is all comes down to is profit. Whatever is the most profitable technology, is considered the safest/best/cleanest at the time. Fracking is so common right now it has flooded the market of NG and almost killed its own industry. 5 years ago fracking was new. 5 years from now we will be on a new tech. kick…
Paul Crowe says
How many people died from Fukushima radiation? The only deaths I know of were from falling equipment and other physical causes, just like all of the other deaths that day from the same causes. You say “the day before Fukushima,” but it’s really the day before an earthquake and tsunami of gigantic proportions. The nuclear power plant was beside the point.
George Monbiot, is a well known and very strong advocate of green energy and was strongly anti nuclear for many years, but after seeing how the events around Fukushima transpired, he changed his views on nuclear energy completely. The very old and outdated plant did not cause catastrophic consequences as a result of the quake and tsunami, when by all accounts of the anti nuclear groups, it should have. While news reports constantly called it the “Fukushima disaster,” it was in fact the earthquake and tsunami that were the disaster. Fukushima, which certainly sustained massive damage, didn’t become a cataclysmic event. If it proved anything, it shows that nuclear power is another of our best sources of energy.
Hoyt says
All of which doesn’t change the fact that their plant still should have been updated which would have made the nuclear argument stronger as well. I don’t want to think about the next natural disaster’s outcome (around a nuke) as having a fair amount of luck in not being worse than it should have been.
Paul Crowe says
You’re missing the point of Fukushima, no one is saying it should not have been updated or maintenance procedures improved, perhaps even better located in the first place, but that’s the whole point. It was old, built in 1967, with technology that is terribly outdated by today’s standards, and with practically everything against it, a veritable poster child for the anti-nuclear groups of a disaster waiting to happen.
Then, when struck by a quake it was not designed to withstand, followed by a once in a century tsunami, you would have expected the worst, but the death and destruction was a result of the quake and tsunami, not radiation from the failure of the plant.
Damian says
TEPCO wants $137 billion to clean up Fukushima. 150,000 residents were evacuated, local businesses wiped out etc etc. What insurer is going to cover a new nuclear plant? Nuclear is NOT economically viable unless governments underwrite it (ie taxpayers). In a free market it cannot survive.
Paul Crowe says
As noted in my response to Hoyt, the plant was built in 1967, using old and outdated technology by today’s standards. Think of the likelihood of surviving a catastrophic car crash in a 1967 automobile compared to one of today’s best models. There’s no comparison. Should we insure drivers today as though their cars have the safety features and survivability equivalent to that ’67 model? It wouldn’t make much sense, would it? No one is planning to build a 1967 nuclear plant.
Ian says
TO add to that, http://xkcd.com/radiation/ the exposure by the Fukushima plant was close to that received by your average radiologist. As Paul has said, the result from an engineering perspective was actually pretty good.
There is a new reactor design, called a Modular Pebble Bed Design that is actually fantastic. It was designed by MIT, South Africa started to build one but it was shelved because our government is useless. China have a few pilot plants operational. It’s inherently safe, as in the physics of it’s design prevent a catastrophic meltdown even if all safety systems fail. (one engineer calls it ‘pizza safe’ as in if someone tells him it’s failing he can happily go and have pizza while they wait for it to cool down) It’s small (size of a few shipping containers) produces waste in a much more storable form and can even be used to break down waste produced by conventional plants.
ShermanD says
Darran Wilson wrote: “5 years ago fracking was new.” That is off by about a factor of 10. (Late 1940’s!) I grew up in Southeastern Ohio where I helped by Dad “tend” wells. Fracking was the standard practice to perforate a sand and improve the gas extraction in the ’70’s where I lived. No problems with the practice that I am aware of. My Dad was an investor in 150 wells and he attended the drilling. Today’s deep well fracturing (5000′) is much safer than the shallow well (1400′) wells of the 70’s and there were no issues with the shallow wells. When the water table is 100 to 300′ deep and he fracturing is taking place at 5000′ in a sand, not rock, there is a lot of safety if you understand geology. Also, understand that gas and oil naturally finds its way to the surface. One can “light” the tap water in Upstate NY and there has been no fracking there. The bottom of the Gulf leaks oil constantly and did so long before any drilling. All the more reason to get it out and stop the pollution! Thanks for the article, Paul. This natural resource is a treasure and will be great for our economy for all the reasons you have cited.
Paulinator says
Sand at 5000′ depth? Never would’ve thunk that was posible.
Motorcycle Training says
I’d usually say that anything that brings money into motorcycling is a good thing as we seem to be constantly under fire from almost every quarter however I’m not sure that the alleged damage done by fracking could justify the financial gain
Honyock says
Fracking (now my favorite “F” word!) may very well be safe when done properly, but I believe that the mature technology of offshore oil drilling can be done safely when done properly. If it isn’t done properly, the energy companies are forced to share some of their profirs with a bunch of lawyers.
I suspect that we won’t know the real truth about fracking until the Deepwater Horizon/Fukushima event – one admittedly purely natural, one unambiguously attributable to sloppy practice fuelled by naked greed.
The gas is cheap now, I wonder when we’ll find out how much the balloon payment is.
Hoyt says
What would the Midwest residents say about the tremendous amount of water used in Fracking after approaching another Dust Bowl drought last year?
Paulinator says
How many tons of water does it take to grow the corn to produce one gallon of ethanol? They should stop planting corn.
Hoyt says
I don’t like ethanol fuel. That comment still doesn’t change the amount of water being used to Frack & the amount of energy used to transport the water to the frack site.
No water, no farms. No farms, no food.
Paul Crowe says
Check here for some numbers on water use for fracking.
Nicolas says
Duno about you guys, but I like it better here when it’s about 2 wheels, engines (ICE or electric or compressed-air or using-the-force-power) and handlebars and doers and one-of-a-kind machines, and not about Matt Damon vs Fox News …
hell, I even would rather see another pro-Harley vs anti-Harley debate than a fracking discussion …
Those captcha thingies are getting worse by the day, too 😉
Matt 'Hype Mann' Herrmann says
Good point! This does seem like on off-topic post for the Kneeslider.
OMMAG says
In theory … anything that lowers energy costs could help stimulate the motorcycle industry.
In practice ….. I’d go for massive reduction in government.
sfan says
I am a curious but skeptical observer of the ‘fracking miracle’, I claim no expertise in the matter and no conflict of interest bias for or against it. I do however have a good, pragmatic understanding of how business, public policy, research, and propaganda work.
On the plus side, reduced dependency on middle east oil is a good thing (especially if it leads to more enlightened foreign policy there). From a greenhouse gas perspective, conventional natural gas is better than coal or oil.
This said, there are known risks to fracking and there are enormous financial & industrial interests that want to rush us headlong into its use.
The fact is that collectively we have been incredibly naive of industry over the last many decades (DDT, Agent Orange, tobacco, BGH, Trans Fat to give a few examples,…) and industry’s power to manipulate government.
Two decades after greenhouse gas driven climate change has been argued and heavily denied by the energy industry, laggard governments are finally starting to recognize it as fact. Unfortunately direct experience and new science now increasingly suggests we may already be beyond the tipping point of positive feedback loops (arctic ice cap & methane releases from dwindling permafrost).
The EPA recognizes some of the risks of fracking http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracture/ and has done some study of them, but the scope and transparency of this research has been criticized. This Wikipedia page describes and provides extensive source references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States (as always, no matter the source, caveat lector).
It seems to me the big question with rushing headlong to exploit the fracking miracle is how much do we care for the lives of others, including our own children and grandchildren? There is plenty of money to be made by screwing them and not much standing on the side of diligent prudence.
sfan says
Hi Paul, you asked for evidence, well here is a start. It seems that fracking *as being done now* is a very recent development and not the subject of much public research other than industrial R&D. It looks like Cornell is a hotbed of research and scientific debate on fracking.
What follows are two scientific letters arguing for and against caution and a link to a series of “myths and realities” articles with a cautionary bias.
Urging caution and more research on fracking:
Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations
Robert W. Howarth · Renee Santoro · Anthony Ingraffea
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0061-5
(FYI TIME declared Howarth and Ingraffea on its 2011 “People Who Mattered” list)
Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by highvolume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions.
Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.
Retort:
A commentary on “The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations†Lawrence M. Cathles, Larry Brown, Milton Taam and Andrew Hunter
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0333-0/fulltext.html#CR11
Abstract
Natural gas is widely considered to be an environmentally cleaner fuel than coal because it does not produce detrimental by-products such as sulfur, mercury, ash and particulates and because it provides twice the energy per unit of weight with half the carbon footprint during combustion. These points are not in dispute. However, in their recent publication in Climatic Change Letters, Howarth et al. (2011) report that their life-cycle evaluation of shale gas drilling suggests that shale gas has a larger GHG footprint than coal and that this larger footprint “undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over the coming decadesâ€. We argue here that their analysis is seriously flawed in that they significantly overestimate the fugitive emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction, undervalue the contribution of “green technologies†to reducing those emissions to a level approaching that of conventional gas, base their comparison between gas and coal on heat rather than electricity generation (almost the sole use of coal), and assume a time interval over which to compute the relative climate impact of gas compared to coal that does not capture the contrast between the long residence time of CO2 and the short residence time of methane in the atmosphere. High leakage rates, a short methane GWP, and comparison in terms of heat content are the inappropriate bases upon which Howarth et al. ground their claim that gas could be twice as bad as coal in its greenhouse impact. Using more reasonable leakage rates and bases of comparison, shale gas has a GHG footprint that is half and perhaps a third that of coal.
Fracking Shale Gas: Myths and Realities
Veteran energy reporter Andrew Nikiforuk keys off Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea, a world-recognized fracking expert, to get to the bottom of four big claims used by industry to reassure the public.
http://thetyee.ca/Series/2013/01/08/Fracking-Myths-And-Realities/
Paul Crowe says
Quite a bit to look at there, I’ll have to dig into it. Thanks.
Discussions about hydraulic fracturing, nuclear energy or any power generating technology are difficult because it seems to bring out so many emotional responses that it’s hard to get at the truth. My interest is in knowing more, wherever the data leads and I think many here have the same goal in mind.
No technology, whether energy related or not, is perfect. If perfection is the standard, nothing humans attempt will ever measure up, but that seems to have become the demand of some ideologues, if less than perfect we cannot proceed. It’s not hard to see where that leads. Study, experiment, examine the evidence and learn, it’s the best we can do. Since nothing will be perfect, we must then examine the trade-offs and proceed. So let’s keep learning, but eventually we must proceed.
sfan says
I agree with you Paul that nothing is perfect and there will always be trade-offs. I also certainly agree with you about reason, data and science vs ideologues. The tougher trade off is private profit & self-interest for the .001% club (which appears to own the political process) vs externalized public risk and cost for the rest of us.
All this to say that we better hope that fracking doesn’t result in massive methane releases because the amount of exploration and extraction that is just beginning around the world is immense. Consider the US claim of 100 years energy supply then look at this (9x more in the rest of the world):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/02/13/china-closer-to-joining-shale-gas-fracking-craze/ Furthermore, as it is early days for this industry, it seems safe to assume that additional viable reserves will be found.
This global supply information also appears to undermine the MIT Technology Review assumption that US shale/natural gas, as a cheap energy resource, will necessarily spur US manufacturing competitiveness. TR says “The impact of cheap natural gas on manufacturing … could make the U.S. a far more attractive place for a wide range of industries.” From the look of the Forbes chart (EIA data) we can’t really assume that North America, while clearly having large reserves, can necessarily beat China anytime soon based on shale gas energy input cost advantage.
I admit that even if the science overwhelmingly concluded that shale gas extraction would have horrible global warming consequences, there is no evidence in history that civilization could agree to do the right thing.
Sorry to go all serious here however the subject and discussion seemed to call for it. I love your work and have been here daily for years!
Paulinator says
I’ve got a confession…I LIKE WINDMILLS…and that makes me a bad person. It’s raining dead birds and the tin-foil pyramid-hat crowd can’t get a good night’s sleep for the low-frequency thrumming in their heads. Actually, I worked in a mirror-glass office building that was strategically placed next to a wetland conservation area. The sound of all of the birds bouncing off of the windows was just like frackin popcorn!!! Did the EPA ever publish a document identifying the effects of reflective architectural treatments against bird populations? Maybe, but no one cares.
This issue is not about ground water in Texas or the mid-west or Pennsylvania, or even about national energy policy. Its global in scale. Development of NG as a clean and readily adaptable alternative energy source will have an enormous impact on the value of oil, the world’s most lucrative trade commodity, as well as the flow of subsidies to the Saudis and the other Semites in the region. The EPA has bitten the apple more than once when lured by big business, big oil, big government and big lobby. And it doesn’t get bigger than this. Put your breathing apparatus on and wait another decade for the truth reveal itself while the current published technical papers ferment into obscurity.
On a final note, even though I thank Al Gore daily for inventing the internet that provides me with access to the KneeSlider, I still think he’s an idiot.
AutoConception.com says
Ripping up the earth is really no long-term solution. By doing so, the US might be digging itself into a deeper hole (if you pardon the pun!).
So what if Matt Damon’s making a film funded by rich Arab patrons. Hollywood is far from impartial or objective.
Both the government and media of the US are pretty much owned and operated by the military-industrial-complex.
If the Kneeslider is going to seriously discuss issues such as emergent design and manufacturing technology, then it needs to do more research. For example, just today there were two separate reports published concerning new fuel technologies: one was on engineered bacteria being able to produce fuel from sunlight; the other on thermoelectric material that can draw electricity out of hot water.
Mister X says
Wow… you are seriously out of touch, fracking isn’t safe, it’s an environmental disaster.
Eddy Current says
Fox News is substantially owned by a Saudi prince and they can hardly be described as enviro-weenies. You might recall Fox’s commitment to scientific precision when Bill OReilly made his evidently entirely serious comment about “Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that.”
http://www.geekosystem.com/bill-oreilly-cant-explain-that-meme/
The next major resource shortage is going to be fresh water, it really would behoove us not to foul up any more of this precious utterly necessary life sustaining resource than can be humanly managed.
This blog is a lot more interesting when it stays off politically loaded subjects such as fracking. Some subjects are just automatic flame bait and neither side will be convinced of anything by any amount of evidence due largely to the near religious devotion many Americans have to their particular political point of view.
Paul Crowe says
The above comments have been interesting and none of you descended into the flame and anger that might be expected on a topic like this. You guys are great. Thank you for that.
So why did I write about fracking? That’s the next post.
Tony says
Fracking is on the cards in Ireland and it’s getting serious resistance to from many quaters… how long it will last no -one knows – as always the might buck will no doubt be used to calm the disgruntled locals.
akaaccount says
You’ve got a lot of guts opening this can of worms Paul. I happen to work in the OG industry and, as always, the problems with fracking are more complex than just “DO IT EVERYWHERE NOW!!!!!” vs “BAN IT OUTRIGHT AHHHHHHH!!!!!!”
Safe fracking is reliant on a good well construction job. If you want to make fracking safer, the thing to do is put some money and effort into improving well casing technology. Imagine that, working on the root cause of a problem instead of panicking and running away screaming.
Paul Crowe says
As noted in my previous comment, my next post will explain why I wrote this.
Update to this comment: I changed my mind as noted below. We’re just moving on.
fharmon says
Heres my issue; just because it may be cheaper to manufacture steel or any other product we still may not see the lower prices promised. Do we really expect the manufacturer to pass the savings on or pocket it, as any company thinking of its shareholders dividends would do???? Good that its an alternate source though…..
B50 Jim says
Paulinator —
A year ago I drove across Iowa on my way to Baxter Cycle; I hadn’t made the trip for many years and I was impressed by the sheer number of windmills there — hundreds, marching off to the horizon. One resource Iowa has in abundance is wind, and the state generates 14% of its electrical energy with wind power. That’s significant. Everyone I talked to had good things to say about their wind energy, right there in conservative rural Iowa. They see its value close up.
BTW: Any rider who loves vintage English bikes must make a pilgrimage to Baxter! Besides being some of the best folks you’d want to meet, they have a grand collection of fabulous English iron, all for sale, plus a parts department literally overflowing with most everything you need to keep your ancient Limey bikes on the road. Their service people can fix anything, and their machinist will happily rebuild a crank or anything else you need, at a reasonable cost. Out front is a showroom full of new Triumphs and Royal Enfields, and scattered everywhere are mementos and memorabilia from the glory days of English motorcycles.
Edddy Current —
You are correct in saying the next big environmental issue will be fresh water. The tiniest fraction of the world’s supply is fresh water, with most of that tied up in ice. I live in Chicago, next to the Great Lakes, the biggest fresh-water supply in the world, and even that is under pressure. Lake Michigan, from which the city and nearby suburbs pull most of their potable water, now is at record low levels following a year-long drought. If it goes lower the Chicago River will reverse its flow back to its original configuration and start dumping sewage and runoff into the lake. That will place an extra load on the city’s already-loaded water treatment system. You are correct in saying civilization relies utterly on ample potable water; without it, there can be nothing else, and we must be diligent in ensuring that the world maintains its supplies.Otherwise the only motorcycling will be of the “Mad Max” variety
Paul — I have no problems with the captchas. They take some deciphering, but they’re not difficult.
Gerry says
The Shah of Iran once said that “Oil is too valuable to burn” When the oil and gas runs out and you park the Donzy and the ‘vette you will be saying: Cool – I got a bicycle like all the tree huggers – right? OK. Where do I get the oil to lubricate the bearings? How do I replace the plastic seat? My spandex racing suit? Answer: You won’t. If you think we can go back to horses… The City of New York was glad to see cars at the end of the 1800s. They had a million dead horses a year that they had to deal with in NY.
So now 14% of the electricity for Idaho comes from wind turbines – when the wind blows. What about the other 86% of the population? We had a wind turbine failure in Prince Edward Island. The only crane that could reach it came in 14 tractor trailers from Wisconsin. The repair crew came from Alberta. How long do you think it would take @ $0.08 a KW to pay for that repair?
In crazy Ontario we pay Solar panel owners $0.80 a Kw and we charge customers $0.08 a Kw and people wonder why our debt is greater than California’s. Duh.
How about pollution? In the 1970s the Volkswagen was banned because at 30 MPG it produced too many parts per million of Nitrous Oxides But we kept the 4.8 MPG Lincoln ’cause it was slightly better.
The question really is: How ready will we be when we do run out? So far the inmates at the insane asylum are still in charge world wide – and they are driven by greed.
.
OMMAG says
Whay the heck should you explain anything? Failure to comprehend on the part of readers is their problem … not your responsibility.
Move on…
BTW reCaptcha is seriously flawed.
Paul Crowe says
If the reCaptcha looks really impossible, reload it for a new challenge. Click on those two curved arrows just to the right of the entry box where you type your answer and it will give you a new pair of words.
As to your other point, I’m beginning to agree with you. A very fine author, Albert Jay Nock, liked to say, “Never complain, never explain.” I think I’ll follow that advice.
zipidachimp says
Heenry Ford II’s personal mantra: ‘never……………..’ . Just read up on Nock. He is spinning in his grave over November’s result!
I knew there was a reason I love this site, and I just found it! Thank you.
Paul Crowe says
Didn’t know Henry Ford II adopted that motto. Cool.
Albert Jay Nock was one of the finest writers I’ve ever come across, his ideas and philosophy first rate. First encountered him in college many years ago. All of his books were out of print at the time and I had to track them down one by one. It was well worth the trouble and they still hold a place of honor on my shelves.
Now you can get all or most of Nock’s books and essays
on Amazon. Thinking and writing of this caliber is rare and, today, possibly extinct.
Peter says
So, ground water contamination is something everyone agrees is a cause of concern with fracking. No one has yet mentioned the amount of air pollution generated by fracking. Do some research on just how much, and what kind of airborne carcinogens/pollution is produced by every single fracking well site. After getting those facts, help me understand why fracking is exempt from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Federal Clean Air Act.
peabody says
Wait until your tap water catches fire…..then maybe you’ll think twice.
Fracking is almost as bad for the topography as strip mining coal.
Paul says
Lack of rules in the NE is (was) the real problem. In Texas the TRRC has very strict rules, especially about disposing of “frack” waste liquids. In Pennsylvania it was legal to pour them into the city wastewater.
If you look at the Baker Hughes rig count you’ll see that drilling for natural gas has gone down considerably due to the low price. The current low price is an anomaly and won’t last.
As far as nuclear goes, the lack of permanent disposal for spent fuel ALONE is reason enough to never build another.
Paul Crowe says
” the lack of permanent disposal for spent fuel ALONE is reason enough to never build another.”
Coal currently provides half of our electricity. The solid residues of coal combustion comes to 890 pounds per American per year, if you got all of your electricity from coal over a 67 year life span, the waste would amount to 68.5 tons. If all of your electricity over that same lifetime came from nuclear power, your share of the waste generated would be 2 pounds and fit in a Coke can, only a trace is long lived and none of it goes into the biosphere. Also, nuclear power plants emit no greenhouse gases.
I highly recommend an excellent book on the subject of nuclear power: Power to Save the World
by Gwyneth Cravens. And if it makes a difference, Stewart Brand (the Whole Earth Catalog guy), praises the book as “the best introduction to the current realities and benefits of nuclear power.”
Rob says
http://solartribune.com/stanford-scientists-develop-peel-and-stick-solar-cells-2012-01-11/
Rob says
I guess without linking half a dozens articles trying to prove a point it is just an opinion. My opinion is that, no, shale gas will not save the motorcycles, motorcycles will have to save themselves. I think leaning on nuclear and fossil fuel will hold us back as a civilisation. Electric motors and novel ways of producing energy still in development will see the growth of electric vehicles while IC motors will become less important. Fusion is the holy grail for nuclear power everything else is polluting.
Rob says
I think i was an excellent thought provoking post. Well done Paul for asking the hard questions.
Dano says
I think I’ll head up to the Boston Bike Show tomorrow and buy one of those Zero electric bikes.
It was made with power from coal and deliver by a vehicle using that fracking stuff.
It runs on power from solar or nuclear (Millstone Plant here in Connecticut), how good is that?
Two wheels and everyone is happy!