http://www.csmonitor.com/
We've discussed fracking before, and now it is a fairly mainstream topic (but you heard about it here first!). Like the almost unreal tar sands projects in northern Canada, maybe we have to rethink our energy consumption habits if our society finds a process as zany as fracking to be economically viable: truck tons of equipment to some remote site, drill a deep hole, then pump millions gallons of chemical water thousands of feet underground just to release some methane trapped in rock pores. And of course we don't capture all the gas, so some leaks and contaminates the environment and human settlements. And then there's the question of what to do with all the waste water (or as the industry likes to call it, "produced water"). Plus, it's not like the gas firms are so diligent to recover every last ounce of their poison. They of course swear that the used water is perfectly safe. If so, then why did the industry lobby for a waiver from the EPA Clean Water Act? And why then are they pumping/trucking the water hundreds of miles for underground disposal in economically-depressed states like Arkansas and Ohio, places desperate for new jobs/investment at the cost of public safety and the environment? Like with nuclear power, maybe "green" natural gas wouldn't appear so cheap and clean if the waste management costs and other externalities were rightfully factored into the market price. I know we want to wean ourselves from foreign oil, combat climate change, and the US is sitting on huge natural gas reserves. Gas prices are at almost record lows. But nothing comes free. If we had the misfortune of living near a neighbor who sold land rights for drilling or waste disposal, we might feel a lot differently.
So on top of all these problems associated with fracking, now there is evidence that the fracking and waste water disposal may even be causing small earthquakes! Water is a lubricant, and a lot of water is very heavy and exerts pressure on its surroundings. Mix a small fault in there and what do you get? Fortunately the shale gas areas in the US Midwest are not very seismically active, but Ohioans living near waste water wells have experienced 11 quakes as high as 4.0-magnitude since the projects began. So Ohio and Arkansas are now banning waste disposal in certain sensitive areas of their states. Of course the drilling and waste companies say that no one can definitively "prove" that their activities caused the earthquakes, because many natural stimuli also contribute to quakes. The tobacco companies and their lawyers used to say the same thing about their products and human diseases. But enough correlation can usually convince sensible people.
Geology is a delicate balance of forces, and we can barely understand and predict quakes. Like with climate change, some people can't believe that tiny humans and our tailpipes could affect changes in the massive atmosphere. But small perturbations eventually accumulate into big consequences. Yes, faults and rock formations are huge compared to the relatively small volumes of water we're injecting, but a tiny pin can pop a balloon. Aware of this controversy, companies have tried to filter and recycle the waste water instead, but couldn't get the output to meet gov't purity standards (which I'm sure aren't that strict). If so, then I don't see how it makes sense to dispose of the untreated water in the ground, where it can eventually seep into aquifers and faults. There's just a lot we don't know about the consequences of fracking, but US policy is reactive - the companies say it's safe, so let them do it until there is clear proof of a problem, and then maybe take action if Congress or the courts are interested. But by that time it's too late for the first rounds of victims. And the gov't fines and litigation settlements are measly compared to the huge profits already extracted.
In the EU, drilling companies have seen the boom in North America and want a piece of the action. Shale gas exists over there too, but the French government has voted to ban domestic fracking entirely (despite sitting on the 2nd largest reserves in the EU). They have more incentive to frack too: energy prices are usually 4X as expensive in France than the US (and they are at the mercy of unstable exporters like Russia and Libya), but their consumption is probably 1/2 ours, and their energy companies seem to have less political sway. They have studied the risks and costs, and found that a moratorium is the best course of action for their people's future. Poland, with the biggest gas reserves in the EU, is pushing hard to frack (and foreign energy companies like Exxon and Conoco are salivating to get a piece of the action), as they are under more under Russia's thumb and dependent on dirty coal than Western Europe. The EU can impose union-wide environmental regulations, so the countries are sparring as to what the overall policy on fracking should be. It's tough because the EU also had ambitious carbon reduction goals, and converting to natural gas would help there (especially since nuclear is falling out of favor after Fukushima). But we shouldn't create 2 new problems to solve 1 old problem. Of course the more consequence-free solution is energy conservation, but that is not as sexy as a new technology or new exploration.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
http://www.economist.com/node/
2 comments:
Unfortunately, conservation alone won't solve the energy problems of the 21st century; you'd be hard pressed to find someone more amenable to conservation but even I understand that (new) supply has to be part of the picture.
Of course new supply is important, but at what cost? It's not a binary choice - go all-out on fracking or permanently ban fracking. And of course there are other energy alternatives. But until it is guaranteed to be reasonably safe, do you want to be that spokesman for the energy company who has to get peppered by the media and work out settlements with poisoned neighbors?
Post a Comment