TOP
What is the Southern Hills Aquifer?
An aquifer is an area of rock that holds water underground. Wells draw water up from the aquifers. The Southern Hills Aquifer stretches from the Pearl River west past Baton Rouge and north nearly as far as Jackson, Mississippi. The is the main, or only, source of drinking water for 10 Louisiana parishes and 17 Mississippi counties. Millions of people rely on the waters of the Southern Hills Aquifer. More...
Why don't we just drink from the river?
Although there are several substantial rivers that lie atop the aquifer, including the Amite, Tichfaw, Natalbany, Tangipahoa, Bogue Chitto, Atchafalaya, and Pearl Rivers, these surface waters are not used for drinking. The expense of treating the river water to make it drinkable would make the water more expensive than just pumping it from the aquifer. Areas like New Orleans, which don't have access to the aquifer and must rely on treated river waters, are estimated to pay nearly twice as much for water as areas like Baton Rouge, who enjoy the perks of living atop an aquifer. More...
What is natural gas?
Mostly, natural gas is mostly methane, which can be produced either biologically by various types of organisms, or produced by the heat and pressure found deep within the crust of the Earth. The U.S. currently has over a million natural gas wells. It's estimated about half of the U.S. natural gas production comes from "unconventional resources," like shale, which very likely require hydraulic fracturing to access. "Shale gas" has become an increasingly important to both the oil and gas industry and the American government. More...
Is natural gas "clean"?
Well, it's cleaner. With one-fifth of the nation's electricity coming from this single source, natural gas is a better choice than other "dirtier" fossil fuels. But natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and it still produces carbon dioxide when burned, just less than other fossil fuels. Further, methane, the major component of natural gas, is itself a greenhouse gas. It's actually a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, holding about 20 times the heat in the atmosphere that CO2 can hold. This means methane leaks or emissions from production are significantly harmful. For this reason, many operators "flare" the wells when excess natural gas is being released. More...
Why is natural gas from shale important?
Right now there is a shale rush going on; it's called the "Shale Revolution" and it's sweeping the globe. You see, most countries are either relying on someone for natural gas, or supplying someone with natural gas. Only Russia and Africa require no natural gas imports. The World Energy Council touted "The emergence of shale gas as a potentially major energy source [which could] have serious strategic implications for geopolitics and the energy industry." The U.S. Geological Survey states that the "development of the shale gas resource is considered a major component of America's energy supplies for the foreseeable future." In past years, the output from shale resources has jumped from 2% of the total national production all the way to 37% of the current U.S. natural gas production. The industry predicts fracking will be responsible more than twice that much production in the future. More...
So what does this have to do with Putin?
Here's the tricky part- Russia holds the most reserves of natural gas in the world, and they produce one-quarter of the world's natural gas, though this figure's expected to grow. Russian natural gas and oil is almost entirely controlled by a state run company (Gazprom) and Putin uses their exports to influence those who rely upon them for energy, most notably the Ukraine and most European countries. More...
You see, we're in the midst of a "Shale Revolution." This movement is sweeping across not only America but the world. And currently the U.S. is attempting to shore up its political capital in the world. Russia currently supplies most of Europe as well as the Ukraine with natural gas. Because their vast reserves and production are controlled by the state-run company Gazprom, Russian leader Vladamir Putin is able to use this natural gas as a bargaining chip, shutting off the flow of natural gas to through the Ukraine, and threatening the energy supply of Europe. Due to the "boom" in fracking that has happened over the last 7 years, the U.S. is finally producing enough natural gas to step in and supply exports to countries who have had their energy supplies threatened by Putin's actions. Further, we're actually exporting fracking to these countries as well, with Halliburton operating in Poland and Shells set to begin operations in the Ukraine. Geopolitically, fracking and natural gas are powerful. But any time you year the term "American natural gas exports," you should think of fracking, because the two go hand in hand. More...
What is fracking?
This process produces cracks in the rocks creating a path through which the natural gas or oil flows to the well. Fracking not only allows new resources to be accessed but also allows additional resources to be extracted from existing wells, a process called "stimulation." The way it works is that fluids are pumped into the wells, which have been drilled deep underground, sometimes horizontally as well as vertically. As more and more fluid is pumped into the channel, the pressure of the fluid builds up to about 10,000 pounds per inch, eventually becoming strong enough to fracture the rocks around it. It's sort of like trying to blow up a balloon that has been frozen in a block of ice. Eventually, the pressure of the air will force the ice to shatter. The fractures in the rock can extend several hundred feet away from the well. Once the rock is shattered by the fracking fluids, pressures are reduced and sand is pumped into the cracks to hold them open. The sand allows natural gas (and oil) to move from the rock to the well. More...
What's in "fracking fluid"?
Fracking fluid is made up of mostly water (90%), a little bit of sand (9.5%) and a relatively small amount of chemical additives (0.5%). (The catch is that the high volume of fluids used in fracking causes this even relatively low concentration of chemical additives to take on greater importance because of the sheer abundance of material used.) These additives are a variety of chemicals that serve a variety of purposes in the fracking process. Acids, potassium chloride, friction reducers, surfactants, gelling agents, and scale inhibitors are all listed as additives. The American Petroleum Institute assures that these additives are no more dangerous that many common household products, including table salt, laundry detergent, soap, deodorant, and food additives. Currently, there is no regulation regarding reporting of which specific chemical additives are being used. Voluntary reporting, such as the FracFocus database, has been somewhat adopted by the industry. The EPA is accepting public comments until August 18th concerning transparency when it comes to the chemical additives used in hydraulic fracturing activities. More...
What is "formation water"?
Petroleum was created from decayed plants and animals buried deep within the Earth. These dead plants and animals lived within ancient seas. Because of this, the formations that contain petroleum reserves often contain salt water, or brine, as well. "Formation water" is the water that comes from the actual geological formation, trapped within the rocks along with the petroleum. But naturally-occurring radioactive materials are also trapped within these rocks, and they are dissolve in the formation water. When the water is extracted during drilling, it's added to the rest of the wastewaters produced. And once the petroleum in the formation begins to dwindle, more and more of this water will be produced. Once separated from the petroleum and added to the waste pits or tanks, these waters become known collectively as "produced water." More...
What is "produced water"?
"Produced water," simply put, is all of the wastewater produced from unconventional oil and gas production. It is made up of both "flowback," or excess fracking fluid, and "formation water" pumped up from the depths of the Earth. These fluids are stored in pits or tanks onsite for re-use during active drilling, but they must be disposed of once the drills stop. Unconventional resources, like shale, produce significantly more of these contaminated water wastes. Massive amounts of this spent water are injected underground for storage, or discharged into permitted surface waters or treatment facilities. These wastewaters tend to high in dissolved and suspended solids, salts, organic and inorganic chemicals, metals, and naturally-occuring radioactive materials. More...
What are dissolved and suspended solids?
Most of the materials dissolved in "produced water" are iron compounds, but they may also contain calcium, chlorides, nitrates, phosphorus, and sulfur. Each location has it's own particular mix of materials. Silt, clay, fine bits of organic debris, and algae can also be suspended in these waters. Dissolved and suspended solids are both problems for different reasons. Dissolved solids are small enough to affect the cells of aquatic organisms, causing them to swell or shrivel. It's the same chemical mechanism that causes our fingers to wrinkle when immersed in water for a long time. The thing is that as little as wrinkled fingers affects humans, for many organisms these changes can be fatal, causing them to rise or fall in the water to areas they are not prepared to inhabit. Suspended solids are a problem because particular potentially toxic chemicals tend to cling to these materials, being collected from the environment and moved into new areas ill prepared for the affects of these mobile toxins. Further these essentially floating materials can block out the sunlight that aquatic plants and animals need for photosynthesis and the continuation of life. Waters containing a lot of suspended solids will also retain more heat. This means the water is actually warmer, warm enough to harm some of the life living in it.More...
What are naturally-occurring radioactive materials?
The geological formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM). The most come NORM are the radionuclides (or radioactively decaying forms) of uranium, thorium, radium, and their associated decay products. These materials dissolve into the "formation water" held within the rocks, and are pumped to the surface along with any oil or gas. The problem is that although these are "naturally-occurring" materials we are moving vast quantities them from one sequestered location to another entirely different location, from which they can much more easily escape containment. Although radium forms several different radioactive isotopes, one particular form can linger in the environment for over 1,600 years if precautions fail. But something has to be done with these copious amounts of potentially hazardous materials, so usually they're injected underground into wells for storage. By injecting the waters into formations with equal or higher naturally-occurring radiation levels, radioactive contamination of the storage formation is avoided. There are estimated to be over 166,000 of these well in the U.S. and they have been linked to "induced seismic activity" (often called "earthquakes" in the media) in some areas. More...
What wastes are produced from fracking?
Produced water is a major waste of the hydraulic fracturing process. Further, greenhouse and hazardous gases are lost or released during natural gas production. These gases can contribute to smog formation, as well as being carcinogenic. Build-up of naturally-occurring radioactive materials on pipes and equipment, also leads to a significant amount of radioactive waste. The EPA estimates that 100 tons of these NORM-containing precipitates are produced by each oil well annual. As petroleum reserves in the formation decline, more and more of these radioactive precipitates will be extracted. More...
Is fracking a new problem?
Yes and No. Hydraulic fracturing has been around for a while, since at least the 1940's. It's just that in the past few years, changes in energy policy and the economy have caused the increased use of fracking technology in a wider variety of locations and the volume of the operations have changed, increasing drastically, as well. This means a whole lot more impact, more waste, and ultimately more concern. But, these were resources that were not previously accessible for use because either it would have just been too technically difficult or simply too expensive to go after them. More...
Why is fracking so controversial?
In short, fracking is so controversial because some people see it as the future for an energy independent America. Others consider it a corporate scourge plaguing our nation and our Earth. Regardless, there are several relatively well known potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities:
- Fracking uses a LOT of water. Is it too much? Well that has yet to be "quantified," meaning we don't know if it's too much. more...
- Groundwater and surface waters can become contaminated from fracking operations or the associated construction. Are they being contaminated and how? A lot of research is still needed to clarify this matter.more...
- Drinking water can be impacted. Is it being impacted? Because there isn't enough research and data to make a conclusive ruling, it kind of depends on who you ask. At least one study has shown that methane contamination of drinking water in aquifers occurred, but not how it occurred. For this reason, many view the problem not as a matter of whether or not to frack, but rather a matter of simply building better wells.more...
- Greenhouse gases and other hazardous air pollutants can be released. Are they? Yes they are, but new EPA regulations intend to cut emissions by 95% (saving industry millions of dollars in lost revenue).more...
- Many people associate fracking with "unnatural" earthquakes. Does fracking make the Earth shake? No. But seismic activity is tied to the wells used to store the vast quantities of wastewaters produced by fracking activities.more...
- Increased transportation is need to move both water and gas and can lead to increased greenhouse emissions and local road damage. Is there any way to avoid the smog and potholes? Yes, most local governments make "road use agreements" designed to protect roads from damage and mitigate traffic congestion. But massive amounts of material must be transported and moving it via tanker trucks produces a lot of CO2, and other greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, pipelines are being built.more...
- Impacts to local economies can be drastic, particularly regarding the housing market. What about the local economy? Immediate negative impacts affect the property values of homes that use groundwater nearest to fracking activities. But ultimately, these operations seem to cause a 'boom/bust' cycle causing the affected communities long term damage despite the immediate rewards that some members reap. "Orphaned" or abandoned wells, which after ending their productivity are left unattended and unmaintained by their former operators, have become a big problem. These orphaned wells, numbering in as many as a hundred thousand, threaten to leak, and generally bring down property values. State regulators an industry operators are working to address is growing issue. Further issues have arisen with national mortgage lenders and insurance companies refusing to service homeowners near shale gas wells.more...
Does fracking make water flammable?
Methane will dissolve in water. Dissolved methane is not toxic when consumed by humans. Some methane is naturally produced by organisms living within the aquifer. Some methane may migrate naturally from formations below the aquifer. But there are some recent studies that suggest that methane produced from fracking activities may be migrating to aquifers. Generally, faulty well construction is often sited as the cause of this type of contamination, although the subject is by no means decided. Dissolved methane will "gas out," or be released from the water, once it reaches the significantly lower pressure of the surface. If methane levels in the air reach 5% or greater, combustion will become possible. More...
What does the EPA say?
The Environmental Protection Agency weighs in on the subject of hydraulic fracturing, stating: "Natural gas plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future. The U.S. has vast reserves of natural gas that are commercially viable as a result of advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies enabling greater access to gas and shale formations. Responsible development of America's shale gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits." And although fracking is controversial, the EPA has limited information on the subject and what they do have mostly comes from industry reports. They have yet to finish any of their own studies regarding the safety of the process. But, a study pertaining to the contamination of drinking water from fracking operations is expected out at the end of the year. A "draft" was provided in 2012, showing some of their initial findings. The American Petroleum Institute denounced their findings as "substandard," claiming they tainted the samples themselves. API asked to collaborate on the study after the draft was released, but the EPA refused. So API instead launched a counter-study to show weaknesses and failings in the findings and methods of the EPA study. You see there's a bit of a learning curve, as methods and procedures for detecting fracking related materials in drinking water and the environment are still being developed and refined. The EPA really hasn't studied this before, they just relied on industry reports that essentially said everything was fine. The American Petroleum Institute actually would have the edge on the research, because they have more data on the subject. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the particular chemical additives used in fracking fluids don't have to be reported, so no one but individual operators know what's being used. Some voluntary reporting has begun, but there is no mandatory transparency about what exact chemicals are being used in these operations.More...
What does the President say?
The "Shale Revolution" is the adopted American energy policy. In the 2014 State of the Union address, the President described natural gas as a "bridge fuel." He expressed his commitment to expedite the growth of the industry, and shift American energy consumption from foreign oil to domestic natural gas. But he also acknowledged that this is just part of a larger shift towards a "cleaner energy economy," a shift that won't happen overnight. And further, "it will require tough choices along the way." More...
What does the industry say?
The American Petroleum Institute, a frequent voice for industry, proclaims that "Shale Energy is the Answer," the magic bullet to solve the energy crisis with no added complexity or consequences. They insist that aquifers are protected by the sheer depth of their operations and by the many layers of concrete used to construct the wells. Because the EPA has yet to complete their study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, API is technically truthful in its claims that the "EPA has yet to demonstrate any evidence of hydraulic fracturing linked to groundwater contamination" or that there is "no direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and groundwater impacts." The EPA also has get to demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing doesn't cause groundwater contamination, or that there isn't a direct link between fracking and groundwater impacts. Because nothing is actually documented on the subject, both the statements "the EPA has not proven fracking is harmful to drinking water" and "the EPA has not proven fracking is safe for the drinking water" are actually true. API doesn't argue that there is no chance of natural gas being found in aquifers. Rather, they argue that the natural gas can't be traced back to the fracturing activities. In some cases, contamination is contributed to faulty cement casing construction, essentially shoddy workmanship, on the wells leading to leaks. In other cases, they argue no specific mechanism, or path (a specific crack) can be found linking the fractures to the aquifer. This natural gas is instead thought to come from shallower formations, those that fall between the aquifer and the formations being hydraulically fractured. They push for less federal regulation, leaving all decisions on fracking up to the states. Further, they demand "no punitive taxes" and a acceleration of the permits process. More...
So is fracking really dangerous? Or is this just panic?
"While there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate surrounding shale gas development, the question of whether the benefits outweigh the cost has yet to be answered."This is definitely not the scenario painted by some- a situation in which the natural gas in drinking water has always been there, but no one noticed and now a small minority of over-reactors are blaming the industry just because the industry happened to be nearby. Nor is this a situation of "Big Oil" attempting to feed their greed by poisoning the people with no remorse. There are larger economic and geopolitical issues involved in the decisions around hydraulic fracturing technologies. The larger issues are indeed fueling this "shale boom." The scale of shale gas production is so much larger than conventional oil production, that it has the potential to create significantly greater impacts.More...
What about jobs?
The American Petroleum Institute, a common voice for the industry, proclaims that fracking means "security, economic growth, and jobs, jobs, jobs." It claims that if fracking were stopped completely, 2.9 million jobs would be lost. But industry numbers related to jobs vary greatly by the source. While the American Petroleum Institute (API) backed "Energy Tomorrow" organization claims that currently there are 9.8 million jobs tied up "directly and indirectly" in natural gas production, America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) only claims that "total natural gas production" supports about 2.8 million jobs in the U.S. based upon a study from IHS global Insights. (Note IHS Global Insights also provided API their employment forecast numbers in a separate study.) More...
But isn't fracking good for the economy?
Evidence is increasingly showing that although there is a definite positive impact economically for communities when fracking comes to town. This impact is short lived, and ultimately the "boom" goes "bust", usually only after a year or two, leaving the communities to deal with all the negative impacts while the oil companies move on. More...
Don't the laws protect us?
"Compared to other forms of fossil-fuel extraction, hydraulic fracturing is relatively poorly regulated at the federal level." The wastes produced by fracking aren't considered hazardous wastes by federal regulators and chemical additive reporting is entirely voluntary. The Clean Air Act regulates emissions from natural gas and oil production. These regulations require operators to use "cost-effective technologies," such as flaring, to capture natural gas that might otherwise escape. New federal regulations required 95% reduction in emissions, and will force operators to capture much of this gas, which can then be sold, making the industry up to $19 million dollars in added revenue annually. The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of wastewaters to minimize the impact on groundwater. But no comprehensive national set of standards has been developed for the disposal of wastewaters produced by natural gas extraction. In 2011, the EPA announced it would set standards regarding these discharges, but two years later decided rather to "limit the scope" of its rulemaking on the matter. Currently, these wastewaters are regulated by permits allowing for their release into either treatment facilities, or U.S. waters, permitting they don't contain particular pollutants. Often these fluids are re-used repeatedly until too contaminated to be useful. Heavily contaminated wastewaters are often injected into underground injection wells, which until 2005 were regulated by the Safe Water Drinking Act. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted the activities of hydraulic fracturing from injection regulations, in most cases. None the less, the American Petroleum Institute claims that any regulation of these wastewaters will be detrimental to the industry, and the country. Generally, State governments have the most say over hydraulic fracturing activities. This is exactly how the industry wants it; they adamantly denounce any federal regulation. More...
No comments:
Post a Comment