Author Archives: Darren Slotnick

Fracking’s Effect on Groundwater

Hello all!

Last time we talked about the benefits fracking has to the economy, our environment, and the state of our energy independence. This week, I will examine the argument against fracking claiming that the chemicals used during fracking can leak into and contaminate nearby groundwater

Many of the biggest critics of fracking point to an infamous video of a woman in Colorado lighting her tap water on fire, claiming that its because of the recent fracking that took place nearby.

Light Your Water On Fire from Gas Drilling, Fracking

Although the woman was living close to a fracking site, it is impossible for any methane or any of the fracking chemicals to seep through the layers of rock separating the well from her water. In fact, it was later proven that the women’s well was drilled directly into a natural pocket of methane gas.

According to geologist Gary Lash of New York State University, the intervening layers of rock between possible fractures caused by drilling and nearby groundwater would prevent any fracking fluid from reaching and contaminating the groundwater. Expecting a fissure caused by fracking to extend several thousand feet upwards towards the surface would be like stacking 12 bricks on top of one another and expecting a crack in the bottom one to extend all the way to the top. In addition, the fracking fluid itself is much too dense to ascend upwards through any fissure in the rock.

Although there have been countless allegations that fracking fluids have been contaminating nearby groundwater, most of these have been proven false or inconclusive. In Pennsylvania, groundwater typically reaches a depth of up to 250 meters deep, while fracking takes place at depths of over 1,500 meters. Expecting fluid to reach the groundwater is geologically impossible, as modeled by the brick analogy earlier. However, in other places such as Wyoming, fracking takes place as shallow as 370 meters. It is much more conceivable that potential contamination could occur with a smaller distance between the groundwater and the fracking.

Recently, in Pavillion, Wyoming, high levels of chemicals linked to fracking have been found in the groundwater nearby. In Pavillion, only a few hundred feet separate the gas being extracted and the groundwater. If further testing confirms that the fracking fluid seeped directly into the groundwater, it may force companies to cease extracting shallow deposits of natural gas. This will not affect the much deeper Marcellus Shale located in Pennsylvania.

The true effect that fracking has on groundwater is still unknown, and it will require extensive testing to determine if fracking fluids are truly contaminating groundwater. If they are, companies in the natural gas industry will likely find a way to use different fracking chemicals that they prove will not contaminate the environment. The jury is still out on fracking, and its up to us engineers to solve the problems associated with this potential energy source.

***See “Natural Gas: A Natural Solution,” a persuasive paper written in CAS 138T, for further references.

Sources:

http://www.nature.com/news/is-fracking-behind-contamination-in-wyoming-groundwater-1.11543

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

 

The Benefits of Fracking

Hello all!

Last week we looked at how fracking could possibly be releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, and the dangers associated with large amounts of methane. This week, we will look more into the benefits of fracking. If it’s so dangerous, why do so many people seem to favor it?

When people want to produce electricity, cheaper is better. Most American households do not care where they get their electricity from, but they do care if their electricity bill goes up. Energy providing companies are taking notice, as natural gas is overtaking coal as a cheap fuel for producing electricity. So what? U.S. carbon emission levels are down sharply, and are actually at their lowest since 1992. This is no coincidence – the rise in natural gas usage is coinciding with a drop in the burning of coal. The burning of natural gas also releases half as much carbon dioxide as coal, and less of nearly every other dangerous chemical (except methane). The true impact that fracking has on methane emissions is hotly debated, and there are conflicting studies on whether or not there really are large amounts of methane being released. It’s something that could make or break the natural gas industry.

In the next five years, you can expect that approximately 270,000 jobs will be created due to fracking. In addition, fracking will contribute nearly $120 billion to the U.S. economy. Not only that, but the construction of new fracking equipment is causing a resurgence in the U.S. steel, chemical, and fertilizer industries. How does this affect the average American’s wallet? Canada’s TD Bank estimates that in 2013, American households will save about $75 billion in home heating and electricity costs. That comes out to be nearly $650 per household. It seems that fracking would do a better job stimulating the economy than that massive stimulus bill a few years ago.

Increasing the amount of energy we get from natural gas would also go a long way towards improving the United States’ energy independence. It is estimated that the U.S.’ natural gas reserves could last our country 100 years, so there is more than enough natural gas for the foreseeable future. Reducing our reliance on oil from the unstable Middle East has countless benefits, such as creating more jobs at home, having a more reliable energy source, and stopping the flow of money into countries that have oil but also support terrorism, such as Iran. Becoming energy independent will ensure that we do not have a repeat of the 1973 oil crisis, when OAPEC declared an embargo on U.S. oil imports and energy costs skyrocketed.

Fracking has a lot of question marks, but there are obvious benefits associated with the method of obtaining natural gas. Is it worth the costs?

 

Sources used:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/08/the-promised-land-of-fracking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/29/gas-rebranded-green-energy-eu

 

The Dangers of Methane

Hello all!

Last week we talked about what fracking was, and how it’s not a breakthrough green energy like many claim. In fact, fracking can be as dirty as coal due to methane leaks. In this week’s blog, I will look further into just how much methane is leaking, whether it’s something to worry about.

It is critical to understand just how bad methane can be for the environment. If a reasonably intelligent person were asked what gas is behind global warming, the most common response would likely be carbon dioxide. And that’s correct – carbon dioxide is the biggest contributor to global warming. But most people wouldn’t think methane would be the next biggest contributor. Methane’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is significant – although there is over 200 times more CO2 than methane in the atmosphere, methane’s effect on global warming is 28% of carbon dioxide’s. Think about that. Methane is contributing over a quarter of the warming that carbon dioxide is, yet carbon dioxide is 200 times more prevalent in the atmosphere.

Methane is even more dangerous in the short run. Being a “mere” 33 times more potent than CO2 over the course of a century, it is a whopping 105 times more powerful than CO2 over a twenty-year period. This means that releasing more methane gas will have a much more severe and immediate impact on global warming than releasing more carbon dioxide will.

But how much is fracking contributing to the total methane released into our atmosphere? Leaks of methane occur while drilling, compression, and pipeline transport. Natural gas plants also leak significant amounts of methane. One study found that natural gas plants could leak upwards of 1000 tons of natural gas per year. Several studies found that leakage rates could be up to 9% of total natural gas production. Natural gas drilling is now the world’s third largest methane releaser, behind factory farms and landfills. And it won’t be the third largest for long.

Many scientists believe that the rapid development of shale deposits could result in huge methane releases and potentially tip the planet into an “alternate climate system.” That’s the last thing we want as we attempt to divert the planet from experiencing an irreversible climate change. Increasing the drilling of natural gas may be cheaper and easier than developing other alternative energies like solar or wind power, but when energy companies cut corners, the earth will feel the consequences.

Sources used:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-01-11/shale-gas-how-clean-is-it

http://ecowatch.org/2012/iea-warns-that-golden-age-of-gas-threatens-renewables/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

 

The Controversy of Fracking

Hello all!

During this semester, I will be diving into the controversy of fracking. Fracking is a relatively new process that has caused much debate over the past few years. A way of accessing cheap, cleaner natural gas, fracking gives us an alternative to other, dirtier ways of producing energy such as the burning of coal. However, fracking is not the perfect solution, as there are many problems that come with it. Throughout the semester, I will be analyzing different aspects of the pros and cons of fracking, and will hopefully determine whether fracking is something we should continue doing in the future.

So how does fracking work? Fracking is short for “Hydraulic fracturing”, and is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at high pressures. This fractures underground shale rock and thus releases the natural gas inside. This natural gas can be captured and used to produce energy.

How clean is natural gas? Cleaner than coal and oil, but it’s not a miracle solution to global warming. The burning of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, just like burning coal and oil. However, it produces only half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxide, and one percent as much sulfur oxides. Good news for the environment? Not so fast. Recent research indicates that methane leaks from loose pipes and gas wells are much higher than initially thought. Including these emissions, natural gas may only be 25% cleaner than coal. More modern and efficient plants can help reduce methane emissions, but roughly half of the 1,600 natural gas power plants in the U.S. operate at lower than optimal efficiency. Methane is also a more dangerous emission than other greenhouse gases, being approximately 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide emissions. This raises even more questions on the benefits of natural gas.

The extraction of natural gas can also destroy the natural habitat of animals and plants, and can cause soil erosion, loss of soil productivity, and landslides. In addition, natural gas is a nonrenewable resource. It is formed when layers of buried plants and animals are exposed to intense heat and pressure over thousands of years. The world’s natural gas reserves will not increase over our lifetimes. Currently, the U.S.’s natural gas reserves are estimated to be 317.6 trillion cubic feet, but that number is expected to increase to over 1,000 trillion cubic feet with additional discoveries. U.S. gas production is 24 trillion cubic feet, meaning that we won’t run out of natural gas in the near future.

Is natural gas a better solution than coal and oil? Should we pour billions of dollars into switching infrastructure to support the usage of natural gas over traditional fossil fuels? Or are we wasting money that could be better spent on other forms of energy development?

 

Sources used:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/natural-gas-clean_n_813750.html

http://www.dangersoffracking.com

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm