So today this blog will go where it seems every other product is going these days, China. Whether or not it comes in form of fracking, China has plans to use natural gas in the future.

One of the benefits is obvious. China is one of the world’s largest producers of coal, which makes it the world’s worst polluter of carbon dioxide. Their poor air quality is ubiquitously known, and there are often city warnings when the pollution concentration in their air gets too high, and people are warned to stay inside.

The move to natural gas from fracking would reduce air pollution, but China isn’t quite there yet in terms of infrastructure. While China has the shale deposits below the ground, they would still need the precise equipment and technology to access the shale, and create a legal incentive platform for businesses to support fracking.

The United States has worked with China before, back in 2009, when Obama visited the country and developed the U.S-China Shale Gas Initiative. China has a lot of potential, with  eight basins where Beijing thinks up to 25 trillion (trillion) cubic meters of shale gas can be recovered from horizontal drilling as well as hydraulic fracking.

One of the problems though, would be accessing the shale. China’s geology is more difficult than the United State’s, with fault lines, a different clay composition, and shale deposits buried more deeply in the ground. This further drilling would not only be more expensive and noisy, but also potentially more dangerous. Another problem regards water usage. While there is an abundance of water in the United States to use for fracking, China does not have that much water to waste. In fact, most of the water they would use would need to be recycled, adding on more costs to an already expensive process.

However, in addition to a improvement in air quality, the use of fracking will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, potentially slowing down climate change. But, other aspects of the environment, especially water sources, can get contaminated.

Then of course is the issue of economics. China, just like the United States, wants to decrease its dependency on foreign energy imports. The big leaguers that hold a lot of money in China have long ago seen the potential of shale natural gas, and were investing in United States companies. With all the potential shale deposits, China could gain vast economic wealth, but it would be a very expensive start up. So far, China only has drilled about a few hundred wells, and amongst those, only half have effectively captured gas.

In this early stage of fracking development, explosions and accidents occur often. What makes matters worse is that the companies don’t interact with the local residents where fracking is taking place. For example, there was an alleged rig explosion in Jiaoshizhen, China that supposedly killed eight workers. The villagers around the area claim they were told by the company not to talk about what happened, and the company denied that any deaths occurred, and that the tall flames seen was actually a controlled flaring of the gas. While the validity of this incident is questionable, workplace safety is still a major concern of China.

The drilling being done in these remote villages is expanding them economically. Roads are being built where previously none existed, and high rises are now being constructed amongst the many one-story brick houses.

China has a hefty goal ahead of itself, but many liabilities lie in the way. The question then becomes whether the benefits of fracking outweigh the risks that can occur, which is something every country who has these shale deposits must ask themselves.

I felt so honored (is that the right word?) my topic for the past few weeks was the highlight of Tuesday’s class. So I’m sure from what we’ve discussed, you can see how complicated fracking can get. There are all the different values at stake to consider, making it the type two issue that it is.

We briefly mentioned in class about the situation in North Dakota. The key to its success lies in the Williston Basin, where the Bakken formation resides. This enormous shale deposit takes up an area of about 200,000 miles. It’s predicted that the state will start producing over one million barrels of oil per day, which will place North Dakota as the number two oil producing state (after Texas). The difference between this oil boom and earlier failed booms in the state is the introduction of new technology (fracking).

The statistics from North Dakota illustrate the economic benefits that fracking can bring. The unemployment rate in North Dakota is currently 2.6 percent, the lowest in the nation. This comes along with an increase in population as well as an increase in the median household income.

With the oil boom in North Dakota, it is not only people directly involved with fracking that are receiving benefits. With the increase availability in fracking jobs, there is population migration to those areas. This influx of people requires more services with food, housing, and transportation. This is where other, non-oil businesses can step in and fill the needs of the workers, prompting further investment in the state.

North Dakota presents one of the strongest arguments for fracking supporters, demonstrating its pivotal role in the developing state economies.

But of course this wouldn’t be fracking without the balance of negatives. While the boom certainly is bringing economic success to the North Dakota region, the search for crude oil means the cleaner, though less valuable natural gas resources are ignored. Because it’s not as economically viable to use the natural gas as opposed to the crude oil, the drillers just let the natural bas burn as a waste product.

Over 100 million cubic feet of natural gas is wasted each day, which not only means gas that can be used as energy to heat homes is squandered, but there’s the additional release of carbon dioxide emissions. This burning of natural gas is called “flaring,” which is what happens to 30% of natural gas produced in North Dakota, causing major concern for environmentalists. This “flaring” has little government regulation involved, so that’s why North Dakota and other states with large oil deposits are getting away with burning all this natural gas. It’s all about cost, and simply natural gas is more expensive to bring to the market than crude oil is, because of oil’s high demand.

With my last post focusing on fracking halfway around the world, I thought with this post I’d bring the issue a little closer to home. This week’s post is about fracking in New Jersey and the latest legal backlashes it’s receiving.

In late December of 2010, the New Jersey legislature put out a bill (S-2576) that would ban fracking and all other types of natural gas drilling, to be implemented immediately. They wanted a permanent ban because of concerns raised about the contamination of drinking water in the Delaware River. They cited an incident in Pennsylvania where an explosion caused by fracking led to the release of several gallons of natural gas into the water system.

In August of 2011, Governor Chris Christie put a conditional veto on the bill, changing the ban from permanent to only a year. In his veto, Christie stated that while he is dedicated to protecting New Jersey’s environment, there were still studies that needed to be completed to determine if fracking warranted a permanent ban. Christie wanted to wait on the studies because natural gas is a cleaner form of energy when compared to oil or coal, and it produces a lesser amount of carbon dioxide emissions. For these reasons, Christie sees natural gas having a significant role in the energy future of New Jersey. After all, he wants to stay competitive with places in Pennsylvania and New York, which have large natural gas deposits that have driven down the price of fuel. Because of this, business groups in New Jersey want to support the practice of fracking, citing that houses that use natural gas in New Jersey have much lower energy bills than those that are heated by coal.

Naturally, environmental groups got angered and began protesting. This led to the introduction of another bill (S-247) for the 2012 session that would extend the ban past the year limit until the EPA has finished the proper studies. Then, the Department of Environmental Protection would have to determine the results of those studies are good enough to stop the ban on fracking. This process may take until late 2014 or early 2015.

Though this would lengthen the ban time considerable past the year-marl, environmental groups still want a ban that’s permanent. They claim that while released in smaller amounts, methane is still a poisonous contributor to global warming. The director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, Jeff Tittel, argues that natural gas, and especially the processes to obtain it, are just as detrimental to the environment as other sources of energy. He states that natural gas can be “ a dirty fuel. This technology is unsafe. It threatens our river and our watershed.”

Which then brings us to today, when just this past Monday when a New Jersey Senate committee advanced a bill that would prohibit “the treatment, discharge, disposal, or storage of any wastewater, solids, sludge or other by-products resulting from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.”

As the bill now goes to the entire Senate for more deliberation, environmental groups again are warning about the contamination of the injected water into the deposits as well as the existing groundwater. Business groups yet again are also warning how banning fracking hinders the much-needed natural gas development of New Jersey.

The advanced bill came a week after several minor earthquakes were reported in Ohio. After those recorded earthquakes, the Ohio state legislature has halted operations for gas company drilling in the area.

As of currently, there are no fracking operations being done in New Jersey, as well as no plans for any in the near future.

(All this is just “possibility”, don’t you love it?)

Fracking is not only a contested issue here in Pennsylvania, but it is internationally debated as well. For example, Australia is seen as a good potential site for fracking growth because of its low population density amongst other factors. According the United States Energy Information Administration, Australia is in the top ten nations with recoverable gas and oil reserves from shale.

But like in the United States, fracking in Australia faces backlash from environmental groups. In a desert-type environment like Australia’s, the danger of water contamination is especially prevalent. Even high-quality water sources are in danger as deep drilling for coal and natural gas could seep into that supple. Since fracking uses large amounts, people are not only concerned with contamination but usage as well.

A report by a government agency, Queensland Water Commission, found water levels in 528 aquifer bores would decrease because of such water extraction.  Because it this, it is required by law that companies purify the water they extract.

With a similar political system as the United States, most of the power in Australia lies in the states. Prominent states that include cities like Melbourne and Sydney put high regulations on fracking.

However, it is important to note that in the Unite States, private companies that own land control rights to any oil or natural gas that lie beneath it. In Australia though, the government owns the right to these resources. It’s because of this that farmers and landowners in Australia feel they won’t be financially rewarded enough if there is drilling that occurs on their land. Companies with the government permits to drill on such lands have to negotiate payment with the landowners, but they don’t need permission to drill.

Many farmers in Australia have taken to protest as a way to express their dissent. In 2012, one such protest outside government offices in Sydney drew 4,000 people.

Because of the country’s expansive landscape and population isolation, fracking is more expensive to carry out there than in United States.  However, the economic benefits could be better for Australia, which exports most of its recovered natural gas (unlike the United States which would drill to fill a domestic need).

The debate is mostly heated in the very resource rich area of Western Australia. Those in favor refer to studies that prove fracking to be safe as well as offer the opportunity to lower domestic prices. Despite this, the Australian government would guarantee that all future drilling products would be evaluated and inspected by proper authorities as to comply with environmental and safety criteria.

To open up western Australia to large-scale drilling would have a massive impact on the country. This land has the possible shale gas resources of 267 trillion cubic feet. Meanwhile the state current consumes 0.5 trillion cubic feet of gas per year.

One group heading backlash to fracking here, especially in the onshore basin of Kimberely, is aboriginal indigenous groups. They want to put a stop to fracking on their ancient lands until the government can prove scientifically with a doubt that fracking will not negatively affect the water supply. They also have qualms with the fact that companies that take over the drilling will ignore the requests of the traditional landowners. This, these groups argue, would interrupt their original connection with the land.

Much like in the United States, those in Australia who favor fracking note the potential benefits for the economy, such as increases in employment rate and a boost received from exporting.

So there while there are a lot of similarities between fracking in Australia and the United States, the differences, especially when considering who owns the natural gas resources, must be considered before labeling universal problems for the expansion of fracking.

The environment is a really huge issue that encompasses many aspects of the earth, so I think it’s right that if we blog about it we’re breaking it down into smaller categories. One very controversial one is fracking. (it’s so relatively new that the word receives a red squiggle beneath it on my computer).

So what is fracking exactly? It involves the earth’s new leading energy player-natural gas. Established over 60 years ago, it involves pumping millions of gallons of chemically treated water into deep shale (natural gas) formations at insanely high pressures. This water cracks the shale or widens already-existing cracks, which frees the natural gas to flow toward the well where the water was first pumped. This specific type of drilling is called hydraulic fracking.

With all this talk about finding new ways to be less dependent on foreign oil, fracking certainly presents an excellent opportunity for that, as the U.S has an abundance of natural gas, or shale deposits, especially under parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York.

But fracking doesn’t come without its share of problems, however. For its effects on the environment, fracking is both supported and abhorred.

It can’t be argued that burning natural gas is cleaner than burning coal, for example. Burning natural gas produces much less carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. However, the methane, a prominent greenhouse gas, released by fracking is of large amount enough to be concerned.

There’s also the fact that the actual drilling itself is very energy-intensive. While fracking is harnessing relatively clean energy, it comes at an environmental cost (one of many which I hope to address throughout the course of this blog) in the form of the heavy machine running around the clock to do the drilling. These machines run on diesel (a not-so-friendly form of energy) as well as the trucks used to get the machinery to the drilling sites.

Those in favor of fracking respond that we’re this close into turning the process to be completely run by natural gas. However, that moment hasn’t happened yet, so for now the diesel is being used to run the machinery.

Another factor when looking at fracking is the economic benefits it brings. With it being a relatively novel concept, fracking is bringing in wealth to otherwise poorer areas if the United States (take rural western Pennsylvania for example). A study at our very own Penn State University said that the fracking industry has created over 23,000 jobs. These span across a variety of areas, including service-related jobs, construction workers, and land surveyors.

This is happening across multiple townships across Pennsylvania, where resident are being offered varying degrees of financial compensation depending how close their property lies near the shale deposits. Their personal beliefs about the environment might get compromised based on how much the money they receive. In their mind, it’s hard to argue against the effects of fracking when you see how positively it benefits you and your neighbor’s economy.

The accounts of how fracking negatively affects the environment, however, keep appearing. One specific problem lies in how to handle the waste product- chemically treated water. In Pennsylvania especially, there aren’t many pre-drilled wells far below the surface to store the chemically treated. Unlike in some other states that have already experienced some natural gas drilling, Pennsylvania’s land doesn’t allow for expansive, underground storage wells. Because of this, the water has to either get moved my trucks (more diesel) to wells where it can be stored, or given to the local water treatment services, which often aren’t equipped to handle all the chemicals and salts inside the water.

As you can see, fracking can get complicated with all the different sources of input from real-life people and the environment, so there’s plenty to be explored in further blog posts.

Sources:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/fracking-amwell-township.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Welcome to Sites At Penn State. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!