I hate to say I told you so but on June 27th, 2011 I posted an article on “gas fracking”, a growing, efficient, and cost effective drilling and fracturing technique to release the gigantic reserves of natural gas trapped in shale rock. The U.S. has more shale gas reserves than anyone on earth, including the Mid-East, which gives us a chance to reach our, heretofore, seemingly unreachable goal of energy independence.
My Prediction Came True
In that post I said that this administration will attempt to slow or eliminate this chance because they are hell-bent on so- called “green” energy and are against the continued use of oil and gas. The fact is natural gas is actually more “green” than many of the so-called green energy options!
Well, just as I predicted the Obama-appointed leadership of the EPA just released a report that “fracking” many have contaminated drinking water in Pavillion, Wyoming. It may make for a good and scary headline but does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is neither definitive nor applicable to anywhere else but Pavillion.
The Facts
1. The EPA acknowledged that the “dangerous” chemical in the drinking water was 2-butoxyethyl phosphate a chemical not associated with fracking fluids. In fact, it is a fire retardant associated with plastic components used in drinking water wells.
2. The “pollution” was actually found in deep water monitoring wells drilled by the EPA which were located near the natural gas reservoir not the actual drinking water wells.
3. The EPA admitted that drilling chemicals detected in monitoring wells may be from old wells that were drilled many years before fracking was ever developed.
4. The fracking activity in Pavillion takes place in unusually shallow wells (1,000-1500 ft.). Most fracking occurs at 10,000 ft., far below drinking water wells. Even the EPA acknowledges this. This certainly questions the relevance of the Wyoming findings.
Why the “Greens” Are Upset
I’m not saying that our drinking water should not be protected. I think we all can agree on that. What I am saying is that this EPA’s credibility is open to inspection. It is dominated by people from this administration bent on raising the prices and limiting production of carbon-based fuels. Natural gas has a much smaller carbon footprint than coal and oil, and shale gas can price wind and solar out of the market. Solar companies are going out of business in droves. The “greens” are terrified by the specter of natural gas becoming the preferred alternative fuel even though it would mean freedom from relying on foreign sources of energy and is the best option for our economy and the job market.
This attack on our only hope for energy self-sufficiency won’t stop until we make a change in who is living in the White House after 2012. One of many reasons this election is so important!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I sit within five miles of the second 5000+ foot deep fracking well being drilled right now in northern Ohio, and daily see the economic boom that the industry brings to the area. Youngstown OH has for the first time in decades a (French owned) billion dollar steel mill cranking out piping for the possible 2000 wells over the Utica shale in OH. Land owners are getting $3000-$5000 per acre for the gas and oil rights to their land with strong landowner protections. Ohio has over 100 years of fracking shallow wells and the most stringent laws about drilling. With $3 natural gas and $100 oil the focus in on liquid rather than gas from these wells, with a multi-billion dollar refinery also being considered nearby. Here is a WSJ rebuttal on Dec. 20 to the EPA scare tactic:
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577098112387490158.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Here is an article on how MI landowners got screwed when a Chesapeake well came up dry there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/28/us-energy-giant-idUSTRE7BR0G420111228
Alan Bachers - a liberal, following the local resurgence with interest.
Alan:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I did see the WSJ rebuttal, too bad not everyone reads the WSJ and most newspapers use the NY Times version of the story. As a liberal, perhaps one day you can explain to me the rationale of some of your friends on this topic. This can mean a resurgence of industrial activity in many Northern States that have suffered for decades, and this Energy Department and the EPA have orders to slow it down and keep sinking billions into solar when we already have the technology and infrastrture in place.This Nobel Prize winning Secretary of Energy likes to do experiments with our money. He never had it so good.
Well stated, George. I have no rebuttal for not using existing, but seriously aging and inefficient equipment. Here is another perspective on the failure of transmission companies to keep up with handling the burgeoning green energy that will only increase. End user manipulation from the Texas Co. is one approach.
ReplyDeletehttp://gigaom.com/cleantech/how-renewable-energy-is-a-disruptive-technology/?utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=gigaom
Alan, haven't read the links yet, but the majors invest billions each year on new and equipment upgrades. And the fracking process uses new horizontal drilling and higher pressure pumping equipment. Regardless of the BP spill, which was really human error, the oil industry's safety record is among the best. If you are talking about old gas transmission lines, I would agree with you. However, new EPA regulations continue to make capital replacement probhitive verses routine maintaince and chemical corrosion inhibitors. Also, when the industry wants to lay a new one (Keystone)there is always a political reason to delay or kill it with this President.
ReplyDelete