US Energy Panel Cautiously Endorses Fracking 294
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that a U.S. Energy Department advisory panel has endorsed fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, a promising technology that injects a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals underground to fracture rock and release shale gas previously thought unretrievable, paving the way for tens of thousands of new wells. If fracking can be done safely, it could be a major source of domestic energy over the next century. Shale gas makes up about 14 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply today, but is expected to reach 45 percent by 2035. But first, serious environmental concerns must be addressed. Earlier this year, a Duke University study of 68 private groundwater wells in Pennsylvania and New York state found evidence that shale-gas extraction has caused them to become contaminated with methane. One key recommendation by the panel is a call for transparency regarding the use of chemicals in the extraction process. Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage."
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Fracking is just another tool in the arsenal of getting hydrocarbons from the ground. Doing it too close to underground wells, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. I would suggest that these cases come down to negligence on the part of the individual drilling company rather than an systematic failure of the process as a whole.
Re:Christian Science (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I'd encourage you to give the Christian Science Monitor a look. It is a well respected newspaper, certainly in the same league as major daily papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post, and has been around for about as long. Personally I think it beats the hell out of cnn.com and the like. You don't have to be Christian to like it. But judge for yourself.
Re:Christian Science (Score:2, Informative)
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
You are objecting to the word Christian in a news publication.
I take it you object to the idea of a guy named Christian in politics too?
http://www.csmonitor.com/About/The-Monitor-difference
Then if the Monitor's news is basically secular and for everybody, why is "Christian Science" in its name?
It's about honesty and purpose. We do not hide the fact that the Christian Science church has stood behind this publication for more than 100 years. While some might argue that not having those words would give it wider appeal, to remove them would mislead people about the organization that supports the Monitor. Eddy knew this from the outset. She insisted, against strong opposition from some of her advisers and church officers, that the words “Christian Science” should be in the paper’s name.
According to one of her biographers, Robert Peel, to Mrs. Eddy, "the designated title was an identification of the paper with the promise that no human situation was beyond healing or rectification if approached with sufficient understanding of man’s God-given potentialities. Nor did the "good news" of Christianity involve the prettification of bad news, but rather, its confident confrontation" (witness Monitor correspondent David Rohde’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting in 1995 on alleged massacres by Bosnian Serb forces).
Re:Easy solution: molecular tagging (Score:5, Informative)
That depends entirely on the trace material used to 'tag' the well.
The trace molecules would also have to be stable under high pressure, high temperature and in the presence of all the OTHER chemicals used in the fracking process.
I like the idea of tagging the chemicals like this but calling it an 'easy solution' is a bit misleading. It is an easy concept, but not that easy to implement in practice :(
Re:It already is a major, massive source of energy (Score:4, Informative)
No, it wasn’t naturally occurring. People who lived by fracked wells had FINE water. Post fracking, animals lost hair and died, the local EPA told them to stop drinking water and their water LIGHTS ON FIRE!!. SO SOMEHOW the “component chemicals’ of Haliburtons frack mixture shows up in water sources??? You have a agenda to fool the public. Truth tells the opposite of what you write. YOu're just another energy lobbyist.
I wish I was an energy lobbyist, could use the money, just a mild mannered physicist. You don't have to take what I said, look here;
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/ [energyindepth.org]
quoted passage;
From GASLAND; “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”
* No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabama’s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had “no recollection” of such an investigation taking place.
* That said, it’s possible that Fox is referring to EPA’s study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.
* In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obama’s top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA’s involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: “Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.”
* For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how it’s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.
Re:It already is a major, massive source of energy (Score:4, Informative)
Small scale alternative energy can only work when there is net metering, where you get paid per kWh what you pay to consume it. Where there is net metering (e.g. Germany) small, distributed, eco-friendly power generation is going up like a mofo. Of course, they are spending some tax money to subsidize this, but actually having sufficient power generation is a worthy goal.
However, the goal here in the USA is to permit corporations to control every power plant and every source of clean water. If they can ruin your drinking water, you are now vastly more likely to buy bottled water for more per gallon than gasoline. If you can't get paid for your excess power they're betting you won't put in any of your own power generation and you will remain at their mercy.
They also want to be the sole source of food, but we can talk about that later.