Posts Tagged ‘fracturing’

h1

Study finds no groundwater issues from gas well fracking

May 17, 2011

Michael Giberson

The study referred to in the above headline, “Study finds no groundwater issues from gas well fracking,” is the same PNAS study I mentioned last week under the headline, “Study finds methane in Pennsylvania, NY groundwater associated with gas well fracking.” I’m not now suggesting that methane in groundwater isn’t a problem, rather I’m saying it all depends upon what the meaning of the word “fracking” is.

The issue was raised by a Greenwire article on this point appearing on the New York Times website.

In most public discussion of gas well fracking, the word “fracking” refers to the entire shale gas well development and production process. In the industry usage is more precise: “Fracking” refers specifically to the hydraulic fracturing process. As in, first you drill the well, then you frack the well, then you produce the gas.

So if we are using the term fracking more carefully, what we would want to say about the study is that it found no evidence of groundwater contamination from the fracking process. The study did find elevated levels of methane in well water samples near active gas wells that was traceable to the fracked shale, but no fracking fluids were found. The likely candidate source of methane contamination is the drilling process, or more specifically the well completion process, and not the fracking process. (However, one possibility is that the high-pressured fracking process damages the well casing installed during well completion, allowing leaks.)

Shale gas development companies obviously face incentives to sort out these issues – methane that leaks into the adjacent soil and groundwater is methane released by the costly fracking process but not producing revenue  - though it isn’t clear from this study how much gas is being lost to leakage.

Property owners with claims to groundwater also have incentives to protect their claims. Property rights to water, and especially rights to a specific quality and quantity of groundwater, are typically quite murky, possibly making it hard to use liability claims as a mechanism to further incent gas developers to mitigate harms. However, to the extent the owner of the minerals also owns surface rights and groundwater rights, then the lease agreement with the gas development company may be the best place to “regulate” at least some of the environmental harms potentially arising with shale gas development.

h1

The sound and fury of the shale gas fracking debate

October 13, 2010

Michael Giberson

Holman Jenkins’s Wall Street Journal column on the shale gas fracking debate seems to be right on the money.

Jenkin’s writes:

As a report from the Houston investment firm of Tudor Pickering shrewdly predicted in June, there will be no fracking ban. Too much money, too many jobs, too much revenue for state government is at stake. Instead: “The gold-rush-like endeavor called shale drilling will morph from trial-and-error into a more institutionalized affair. . . . Bigger companies will have a growing advantage, because they can better afford to prevent spills and leaks and correct them when they happen.”

Yep, the sound and fury of the fracking debate is really just the noise of the fracking phenomenon being domesticated.

[...]

An entire region of the country is unexpectedly being transformed by a new industry. Toes are being stepped on, but money and politics will slop around in ways designed to reduce the opposition to manageable proportions. That’s what politics is for.

A lot of noise is being made at present about environmental and other concerns surrounding fracking, but the prospect of a lot of money to be made will win out in the end. It isn’t that there are no real environmental concerns, but the environmental risks associated with development are small.  In fact, the environmental risks of developing shale gas are likely smaller than the environmental risks associated with not developing the resource.

And development allows access to a huge quantity of low-cost natural gas in a region of high energy demand. Lawmakers and utility commissions often strain to fund low-income energy assistance programs, but I’m guessing such programs are a pittance compared to what advancements in fracking technology are doing for energy consumers. If natural gas prices were still in their pre-shale gas boom relationship to world oil prices, we’d likely have $8-$9 natural gas right now instead of a NYMEX price under $4 per mmBTU.

[HT to TMc. Thanks.]

h1

Fracking and water quality

February 24, 2010

Michael Giberson

One of the issues surrounding development of shale gas resources has been concern over the effects of resource development (especially fracturing processes) on groundwater quality.  Congress has initiated an investigation of the practice, for example.

Geoff Styles looks over the issue in “Shale Gas and Drinking Water“, concluding it isn’t likely to be a big deal:

The more I learned about fracking, the more puzzled I became that it has attracted so much criticism recently. After all, the practice was developed in the late 1940s and has been used since then in tens of thousands of wells to produce literally billions of barrels of domestic oil and trillions of cubic feet of domestic natural gas.

… So how do we explain the current ruckus over hydraulic fracturing? Perhaps one reason this old practice is attracting new scrutiny is because it’s being applied in parts of the country that haven’t seen a drilling rig in decades, where it provokes a similar reaction to the arrival of 300-ft. wind turbines, utility-scale solar arrays, and long-distance transmission lines.

The industry doesn’t seem too concerned about the Congressional inquiry, which suggests that folks in the business don’t think that there is anything to be concerned about.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers