Texas Town Fights Fracking Near Dallas Cowboys Stadium December 6, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Natural Gas.
Tags: Arlington, Fracking, Hydraulic Fracturing, Natural Gas, Texas
add a comment
Kim Feil, a concerned resident who lives in this threatened neighborhood, told Change.org about her work fighting drilling around her home. “This has been my full time, volunteer job since this summer. I have never worked so hard to just maintain our quality of life and property values,” she says. She spends her time going door-to-door informing renters in the nearby multi-family housing complexes and in a low-income trailer park. Most hadn’t even aware of the proposed project, since notification was only sent to the property owners and signs about the public meeting were placed on a street with restricted commercial access.
Ms. Feil explains that locals were assured that the drilling site would not be near them and would inconvenience them for just one month. That just isn’t the case. Even without accidents or groundwater contamination, fracking is disruptive to the local community.
Read the full post and sign a petition to help this neighborhood at Change.org.
Halliburton Tries to Greenwash Fracking November 17, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Natural Gas.
Tags: 60 Minutes, Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake Energy, CSI, EPA, Fracking, Greenwashing, Halliburton, Hydraulic Fracturing, Natural Gas
1 comment so far
Latest post at Change.org:
Some things just can’t be spun, but that doesn’t mean Halliburton won’t try. After being subpoenaed by U.S. EPA for refusing to reveal its drilling chemicals, the company announced it had developed a “green” fracking fluid sourced entirely from the food industry and promised to reveal the generic formula. That’s a start towards public disclosure, but far from good enough.
Full post here.
A Guide to Natural Gas Fracking September 13, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Natural Gas.
Tags: Earthworks, fracing, Fracking, Halliburton, Halliburton Loop Hole, Hydraulic Fracturing, Hydrofracking, Natural Gas, shale gas
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a drilling technique that has earned a lot of media coverage lately – especially in regard to natural gas. In the last couple of years, it has been credited with dramatically increasing U.S. and world natural gas reserves enough to potentially transform global energy markets previously dominated by coal.
However, there are warranted concerns about polluted groundwater near fracking sites most vividly demonstrated by videos of flammable drinking water arriving through kitchen faucets as shown in last year’s investigative documentary film “Gasland.” Yet the most recent fracking headlines came late last week when the Environmental Protection Agency instructed nine major companies to disclose what chemicals they use in the process.
Like many other energy and environmental issues, fracking is not a topic that lends itself to intelligible sound bites – background information is necessary to grasp and engage in the debate. Below, I have posted a number of questions and answers about fracking. If anyone has additional questions unanswered here, please feel free to post them and I will do my best to track down an authoritative answer. So, we begin with the basics:
What is fracking?
Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth – in this case, Energy In Depth, an industry front group:
“Some oil and natural gas wells flow more easily than others. In many cases—up to 90 percent, in fact—it is necessary to stimulate well sites to allow the energy contained thousands of feet below ground to rise to the surface for collection. …By creating or even restoring fractures, the surface area of a formation exposed to the borehole increases and the fracture provides a conductive path that connects the reservoir to the well. These new paths increase the rate that fluids can be produced from the reservoir formations, in some cases by many hundreds of percent.”
Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. Although it is not truly “clean” in terms of either traditional or greenhouse gas emissions, it is preferable to coal for electricity generation and, in compressed form, can be used instead of gasoline. Many people view natural gas as a short- to medium-term transition fuel on the way to a clean energy economy. That would require extensive natural gas resources, and hydraulic fracturing does provide access to vast additional reservoirs here at home.
Hydraulic fracturing can enhance recovery from traditional wells, but its primary benefit is enabling production of “unconventional” natural gas resources (described below). According to the Department of Energy, unconventional American natural gas resources have increased nearly 65% in the last decade – mostly as a result of technological advances (to fracking methods, although the concept has been around for 60 years) rather than discovery of new reservoirs. Already, unconventional sources account for 46% of current US natural gas production.
Why do we use fracking?
Like oil, natural gas forms deep underground. Its low density causes it to slowly rise through the earth from the depth at which it formed toward the surface. In some places, those hydrocarbons reach the surface in natural seeps like the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. More often, however, the rising gas (and oil) become stuck beneath impermeable geological formations known as “traps.” Beneath these traps, gas and oil accumulate in high concentrations, or “reservoirs.”
In the graphic above, the gray “seal” is an impermeable rock layer. At the left side, it has formed a bend (which in three dimensions would be roughly dome-shaped) that has trapped upwardly migrating natural gas. This is what is known as a “conventional” natural gas reservoir. To obtain that gas, you simply drill a borehole straight down into the reservoir and pump it out. The source rock beneath the trap is porous (like limestone) and small channels between pores enable gas to flow through the rock. Visualize the drilling apparatus as a straw sucking out liquid; more liquid from deeper in the reservoir gets pulled in as the pumping continues.
The darker gray band in the graphic contains a shale formation rich in natural gas. Shale gas is an “unconventional natural gas” resource. It is defined by its low permeability, and gas cannot flow easily through it. A vertical borehole would not access a significant quantity of hydrocarbons because the gas is separated into isolated pockets within the rock. This is a bit more abstract, but now visualize trying to use a straw to extract juice from a grapefruit. You can access the pockets you pierce with the straw, but sucking will not help empty any pockets you have not directly punctured.
Of course, shale is not a grapefruit. It is a sedimentary rock, so it has many horizontal layers deposited over time. When stressed, the rocks tend to fracture vertically, opening up pore space between many different pockets. Drillers can access economical quantities of gas by drilling horizontally through a shale play and using hydraulic fracturing to open up those vertical fractures.
How does fracking work?
As in the graphic below, to economically extract natural gas from a shale formation, a borehole is drilled down several thousand feet to the desired depth. Oftentimes the well then turns horizontal, drilling a long distance laterally within the shale play. Then the well is cased like a normal well: steel pipes are inserted and then surrounded by cement. After that, a “perforating gun” is lowered into the well at depth. It contains explosives designed to blow through the steel and cement in certain locations at production depth that will enable hydrocarbons to flow into the pipes. Once the perforating gun is fired, then the fracking can begin.
A combination of water and other chemicals, many of them toxic, are pumped into the well at very high pressures – enough to break the rock. This “fracking fluid” is designed to cause more fractures in the rock and expand them to reach more pockets of oil and gas within the shale formation. Sand or other similar particles are used as a “proppant” to keep the fractures open so that gas and oil can flow through (the high natural pressure at these depths would otherwise close the fracture channels once the fluid was drained). Then production can begin/continue.
This video, also from Energy in Depth, explains the process:
How is fracking dangerous/why do people oppose it?
Fracking requires massive quantities of water. According to the Department of Energy, hydraulic fracturing in a single well generally uses 2-4 million gallons of water. Although clean water is cheap and plentiful in America today, freshwater is not an unlimited resource. Scaling up fracking would consume billions of gallons of water. Even without using billions of gallons of clean water to get natural gas, 1/3 of all counties in the US are projected to face water shortages by midcentury and more than 400 of those counties face extremely high risk of water shortages.
But the more serious immediate concern is the “fracking fluid.” Along with water, companies that employ fracking inject toxic chemicals into the ground. What chemicals? We’re not entirely sure. Fracking fluid is largely unregulated, so they could be nearly anything. We know a few, and there are other reports of chemicals that pose both immediate and chronic health risks. But drilling companies have long objected to disclosing the toxic chemicals they inject
into through* (sorry about the careless phrasing) our groundwater, comparing asking for a specific list to asking Coke to give up their secret formula. Except when Coke spills, it doesn’t kill 17 cows or poison fish. We don’t know exactly what these chemicals are, but we know what they do.
The industry assures us that their fracking fluid is safe. But surely some of these chemicals, perhaps the “biocide,” for example, are dangerous if they migrate into our groundwater as they have done before.
Industry groups like to downplay safety risks by mentioning that more than 99% of the fluid used in fracking isjust water. But remember, a single well can use 2-4 million gallons of water, so that still means 20,000-40,000 gallons of toxic chemicals. And whatever those chemicals are, we know they can leak from a well into the groundwater from which we drink, they have proven lethal to animals, and they have already proven to have significant health impacts for people as well – even just from showering in contaminated water.
Until we know what’s being put into our water, it is fully reasonable that communities near fracking sites are resisting the practice. Earthworks has a good list of fracking myths and facts that help detail the concerns.
Where is fracking being used?
There are sizable shale formations around the country from which natural gas could be extracted with hydraulic fracking (see map below). One of the most promising is the Marcellus Shale formation centered over Pennsylvania and New York. The most vocal opposition is currently in New York, where this week, concerned citizens will have the chance to halt fracking until they are told exactly what chemicals the drilling companies want them to drink.
Shale basins around the country contain recoverable natural gas reserves. Fracking is becoming an industry standard, so federal regulations – or lack thereof – have a significant impact from sea to shining sea.
Is fracking regulated?
Yes and no. Technically, a number of federal laws regulate fracking. The Clean Water Act regulates the surface discharge of wastewater and storm water runoff. The Clean Air Act limits airborne emissions from engines as well as drilling and processing equipment. Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act requires companies to analyze the potential environmental impacts of exploration and production.
There is a notable exception from this list: the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). What about the toxins injected underground? The SDWA rightly regulates toxic chemicals injected into our drinking water. Unfortunately, as Earthworks explains, fracking fluid is specifically exempted from this regulation by the “Halliburton Loophole” in the 2005 Energy Act:
“Despite the widespread use of the practice, and the risks hydraulic fracturing poses to human health and safe drinking water supplies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) does not regulate the injection of fracturing fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials — unchecked — directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies.
This exemption from the SDWA colloquially bears Halliburton’s name because it is widely perceived to have come about as a result of the efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force. Before taking office, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton — which patented hydraulic fracturing in the 1940s, and remains one of the three largest manufacturers of fracturing fluids. Halliburton staff were actively involved in review of the 2004 EPA report on hydraulic fracturing.” -Earthworks
Halliburton (and the Bush administration) justified this exemption by advancing the claim that all fracking fluids are extracted from the well and thus do not enter the groundwater. They have argued in court that these chemicals are both safe and not left underground anyways. That is not true. The toxicity of fracking fluid components is discussed and linked above, but a recent investigation also revealed that up to 85% of fracking fluid is indeed left underground where it can and has seeped into drinking water supplies.
Fracking currently enjoys an additional exemption from reporting fracking fluid chemicals under the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Fortunately, the EPA is now reviewing the safety of this practice.
Fracking and natural gas may well have an important role to play in our energy future, but from fracking pollution to the recent oil spills (plural) and the California gas line explosion, it is clear this industry is in need of modern regulations.
The Political Climate is now on Twitter! Follow @PoliticalClimat for updates as well as daily tweets linking to important and under-reported environmental news.
Republicans Block Anemic Energy Bill for Oil Industry July 28, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Congress, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: Clean Air Act, Congress, Energy Bill, EPA, Fracking, Harry Reid, Inhofe, Jay Rockefeller, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, Mark Begich, Oil Spill, Politics, Senate, ThePoliticalClimate
1 comment so far
Despite the weakness of the pending oil spill/“energy” bills introduced in the House and Senate this week, Big Oil and their Congressional allies are doing everything they can to make sure we do not learn from BP’s unforgiveable mistakes.
100 days after the Deepwater Horizon spill began, Republicans oppose each of the small shuffles down the right path that these bills contain.
For example, anti-science champion Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) takes exception with a provision that requires natural gas drillers to merely disclose which toxic chemicals they are injecting into the ground near our drinking water supplies during the controversial practice known as “hydraulic fracturing” or “fracking.”
Why does Inhofe oppose the simple disclosure of that information? Because Inhofe and the industry claim that the dangers of toxic chemicals in drinking water are overblown.
Comprehensive energy reform is already dead, and even these bills, which could only euphemistically be called “half-hearted”, have a slim chance because Republicans claim that there is little room for compromise. That is a disgusting claim. These bills are already grotesquely compromised. They were so thoroughly watered down in hopes of attracting the necessary supermajority that they are scarcely progress at all. To demand more compromise calls to mind a limbo player lying on the floor.
Republicans most vehemently oppose lifting the liability cap on oil companies that defile our nation’s environment. They say that expecting oil companies to pay for the full consequences of the damage they cause will drive “mom and pop” oil companies out of business. That is hardly a defense of limited liability: if that claim is true, perhaps mom and pop should pursue less risky projects.
Republicans are fighting to preserve the apparent right of every oil company, big or small, to remain blameless for the oil spills they continue to cause in American waters. That is senseless.
With midterm elections approaching, Republicans are pretending to have solutions of their own; toward that end, they are circulating an even bigger joke of an energy bill. Their “alternative” bill contains energy “solutions” such as lifting the deepwater drilling moratorium and preventing the administration from blocking offshore drilling again. You know, the change we need.
However, the Republican bill does contain a provision that unfortunately may influence the Democratic bills. Instead of unlimited liability for oil companies that cause spills (making them pay for all the damage they cause), Republicans have a different idea: ironically, the party of limited government wants to make the Department of the Interior set liability limits on each individual rig based on 13 different criteria, including a company’s safety record and the estimated risks involved with the specific location.
This is just another way to protect Big Oil and make sure that taxpayers are the ones who have to pay to clean up oil spills. Oil state Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Mark Begich (D-AK) are attempting to broker a compromise on oil spill liability.
There is one additional point that must be mentioned. Many Republicans are trotting out this line in various forms:
“This is a serious subject and it deserves consideration by the United States Senate on behalf of the American people. We are ready for a serious debate, but it appears the Majority Leader is not.” –Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
This complaint is not just about the bill’s expedited timeline. It is true that Sen. Reid is trying to have an energy bill passed by the August recess. Yet perhaps more importantly, Sen. Reid is unlikely to allow any amendments to be added to this bill.
Such a parliamentary maneuver is necessary because Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is poised with his amendment to delay the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act; the final regulatory bulwark of climate action in the United States.
Rockefeller’s amendment, about which I will write more soon, is similar to Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) “Dirty Air Act” amendment that was narrowly defeated in June. If amendments were allowed, she too would certainly poison this bill with something similar. Indeed, Murkowski is considering adding the amendment to an unrelated small-business bill as she tirelessly does the bidding of Big Oil in the U.S. Senate.