Background: The Marcellus Shale
Less than a decade ago, industry analysts and government officials fretted
that the United States was in danger of running out of gas. No more. Over
the past several years, vast caches of natural gas trapped in deeply buried
rock have been made accessible by advances in two key technologies:
horizontal drilling, which allows vertical wells to turn and snake more than
a mile sideways through the earth, and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
These advances have led to an eightfold increase in shale gas production
over the past decade. According to the Energy Information Administration,
shale gas will account for nearly half of the natural gas produced in the
U.S. by 2035. But the bonanza is not without controversy, and nowhere,
perhaps, has the dispute over fracking grown more heated than in the
vicinity of the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus shale is a vast natural gas
reserve 6,000 to 8,000 feet below the Earth’s surface located mostly in PA,
NY & WV. Since early 2008 gas companies have been signing thousands
of leases from owners to use the land for drilling. Prices ranging from
hundreds of dollars to $5,000 per acre. Many rural land owners have
leased their land in hopes of receiving millions of dollars in royalties for
future drilling.
Natural Gas companies want to tap
into the Marcellus Shale as a
profitable economic opportunity.
Geologists at Penn State University
estimate that the Marcellus Shale
contains over 500 trillion cubic feet of
gas with 50 to 360 trillion cubic feet
recoverable. This is considered to be
enough to fill the United State’s
current gas needs for more than 20
years. The debate over the Marcellus
Shale will shape national energy
policy—including how fully, and at
what cost, we exploit this vast
resource.
Background: How Fracking Works
Developed more than 60 years ago, fracking involves
pumping millions of gallons of chemically treated water (called
“slick water”) into deep shale formations at pressures of 9000
pounds per square inch or more. This fluid cracks the shale or
widens existing cracks, freeing hydrocarbons (natural gas) to
flow toward the well. Slick water is a cocktail of water, sand,
and as many as 278 toxic chemicals (the exact amount of
each chemical is unknown since gas companies are not
required to release their precise formula for this slick water).
20-60% of the slick water remains underground and the rest
needs to be trucked off for treatment and disposal.
What is Natural Gas?
Pros
•Widely used, contributes 21% of the world’s energy
production today
•Delivery infrastructure already exists
•End use appliances already widespread
•Used extensively for power generation as well as heat
•Cleanest of all the fossil fuels
•Burns quite efficiently
•Emits 45% less CO2 than coal
•Emits 30% less CO2 than oil
•Abundant supply in the US. DOE estimates 1.8 trillion barrels
•Low levels of criteria pollutants, (e.g. SOx, NOx) or soot
when burned
•Can be used as an automotive fuel
•Burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel
•No waste (e.g. ash ) or residue to deal with
•Lighter than air, safer than propane which is heavier than air
•Can be used to makes plastics, chemicals, fertilizers and
hydrogen
•Natural gas industry employs 1.2 million people
•Reduces our need for Foreign oil.
•Can be used as a transitional fuel from coal and oil to
alternative renewable energy sources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cons
Non-renewable fuel, supply cannot be replaced
for millennia
Emits carbon dioxide when burned
Contains 80-95% methane, a potent greenhouse
gas (GHG)
Explosive, potentially dangerous
Concentrated sources require long distance
transmission and transportation
Energy penalties at every stage of production
and distribution
Requires extensive pipelines to transport over
land
Stored and distributed under high pressure
Requires turbine-generators to produce
electricity
Liquefied form (LNG) used to transport over
water, in tanker ships is potentially very
dangerous
Energy use competes with use for chemicals and
fertilizers
Additionally, there are significant environmental
risks associated with “fracking”
By RP Siegel | April 3rd, 2012 (from www.triplepundit.com)
Could we use natural gas as our transportation fuel choice?
PROS
• It costs 1/3 less to fill up with natural gas than traditional gasoline. Plus,
the vehicles powered by natural gas run cleaner than cars with either
gasoline or diesel in the tank.
• According to the Department of Energy, if the transportation sector
switched to natural gas, it would cut the nation's carbon-monoxide
emissions by at least 90 percent, carbon-dioxide emissions by 25 and
nitrogen-oxide emissions by up to 60.
CONS
• But it's not realistic: Nationwide, there are only about 3500 service
stations (out of 120,000) that offer natural gas—based automotive fuel,
and it would cost billions of dollars and take years to develop sufficient
infrastructure to make that fuel competitive with gasoline or diesel.
• Currently, only Honda makes a car that can run on natural gas.
In Addition
• That doesn't mean natural gas has no role in meeting the nation's shortterm transportation needs. In fact, buses in several cities now rely on it.
The same could be done for local truck fleets.
• Perhaps the biggest contribution natural gas could make to transportation
would be a fuel for electric-generation plants that will power the
increasingly popular plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Against Fracking
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water
Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used in their “slick water” during
hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off
the job.
Under mounting pressure, some companies have posted the chemical compounds used in some of
their wells. This revealed some odd ingredients, such as instant coffee and walnut shells—but also
some known carcinogens, including benzene and methanol.
A bigger issue is what to do with this fluid once it rises back to the surface. Currently, a handful of
facilities in PA are approved to treat the wastewater. In the meantime, most companies now
recycle this water to drill their next well or remove it to a wastewater treatment plant.
Roughly 15 million people in NY and PA get their daily supply of drinking water from areas around
and connected to the Marcellus Shale.
Water contamination incidents across the nation are increasingly reported. Most recently
hydrogeologists discovered benzene 1,500 times the level safe for people in a water-well near
hydrofracked natural-gas-wells in Wyoming.
Residents near active drilling sites in PA can set their water on fire and are claiming health
problems related to high levels of methane in the water left over from “fracking”
In May 2011, Pennsylvania officials fined Chesapeake Energy $1 million for contaminating the
water supplies of 16 families in Bradford County. Because the company had not properly cemented
its boreholes, gas migrated up along the outside of the well, between the rock and steel casing,
into aquifers. The problem can be corrected by using stronger cement and processing casings to
create a better bond, ensuring an impermeable seal.
Against Fracking
•
For •
•
Fracking •
•
•
•
•
Gas companies state the “slick water” chemicals are similar to
household cleaning products
Companies and some geologists think that the Marcellus Shale is too
far below the water supply to contaminate drinking water
Gas companies use plastic liners and cement to contain the drill site
Basic geology prevents such contamination from starting below
ground. A fracture caused by the drilling process would have to
extend through the several thousand feet of rock that separate deep
shale gas deposits from freshwater aquifers. It would be like stacking
a dozen bricks on top of each other and expecting a crack in the
bottom brick to extend all the way to the top one.
What's more, the fracking fluid itself, thickened with additives, is too
dense to ascend upward through such a channel.
A report, released by Science Mag suggests that problems aren't
directly caused by fracking.
This study confirms that there is “no direct evidence that fracking
itself has contaminated groundwater.”
Where drinking water contamination has happened at gas drilling
sites, the contamination tends to happen closer to the surface when
gas and drilling fluid escapes from poorly lined wells or storage
ponds.
Debate Topic #3:
Does Fracking Cause
Earthquakes?
Does Fracking Cause Earthquakes?
YES
Nine quakes in eight months in a
seismically inactive area is unusual.
But Ohio seismologists found
another surprise when they plotted
the quakes’ epicenters: most
coincided with the location of a
9,000-foot well in an industrial
lot along the Mahoning River.
The location and timing of the
quakes led to suspicions that the
disposal well was responsible
for Youngstown’s seismic awakening.
As the wastewater was injected into
the well under pressure, the thinking
went, some of it might have
migrated into deeper rock
formations, unclamping ancient
faults and allowing the rock to slip.
NO
Scientists say the likelihood of that link is
extremely remote, that thousands of
fracking and disposal wells operate
nationwide without causing earthquakes,
and that the relatively shallow depths of
these wells mean that any earthquakes that
are triggered would be minor.
Officials with D & L Energy, the Youngstown
company that has been disposing of the
waste, and with the Ohio government say
there is no proof of a link between the
disposal well and the earthquakes. “Right
now we can’t definitively say yes or no,” said
Tom Tugend, deputy chief of the gas and oil
division of the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources. But the state has asked the
company to plug the bottom 250 feet of the
well with cement as a precaution, to ensure
that it is sealed from the deeper rock where
the earthquakes are thought to have
occurred.
• Map showing:
– earthquake epicenters determined
in this study (red circles)
– injection wells (squares and +
symbols) in use since October
2006
– seismograph stations (white
triangles)
– mapped faults (green lines).
• Size of circles shows earthquake
intensity
• Size of boxes shows amount of
injected water into wells
None of the quakes identified in the two-year
study were strong enough to pose a danger to the
public.