A new study from the U.K. backs up what industry experts and others have been saying for years: that the hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) process used to produce shale gas and some other types of natural gas does not pose undue risks to the environment. The study was produced by the U.K. Parliament’s House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee.
The full report can be read here. But its conclusion was summed up by the committee’s chairman, Tim Yeo MP, who said:
“There has been a lot of hot air recently about the dangers of shale gas drilling, but our inquiry found no evidence to support the main concern – that U.K. water supplies would be put at risk. There appears to be nothing inherently dangerous about the process of ‘fracking’ itself and as long as the integrity of the well is maintained shale gas extraction should be safe.”
Of course, the debate over hydraulic fracturing has been prominent here in the States, too. And there’s no doubt it is critical that consumers and governments alike are re-assured about the safety of the process, because the stakes are high for our nation.
Why? In just the past few years, rising unconventional gas production already has created thousands of well-paying jobs and millions of dollars in revenue for states around the country. At the same time, these new supplies have helped keep domestic gas prices relatively low. On top of that, natural gas burns up to 60 percent cleaner than coal in power generation, so rising gas production is helping meet environmental goals.
The U.K. study was the result of a six-month effort by the committee and included written and oral evidence as well as meetings with a range of organizations in the United Kingdom and the United States, including ExxonMobil, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Sierra Club. Members found that fracking and other steps involved in drilling for shale gas are no more risky than drilling for conventional oil and gas:
“There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process poses any risk to underground water aquifers provided that the well casing is intact before the process commences. Rather, the risks of water contamination are due to issues of well integrity, and are no different to concerns encountered during the extraction of oil and gas from conventional reservoirs. “
We agree that when wells are properly designed and completed – and when detailed procedures are used to manage air quality and to reuse or responsibly dispose of water – natural gas can be produced while protecting water supplies and the environment. In fact, we’re talking about ExxonMobil’s approach to natural gas production in an ad running in major national newspapers this week.
As the U.K. study points out, the technologies and well integrity procedures being used today to produce unconventional gas are not new and have been used by the industry for decades. What is new is the combination of two existing technologies — hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. The study also points out the need for operators to adhere to best practices for safety and operational integrity, just as it does for traditional oil and gas drilling. We could not agree more. I will discuss these subjects in more depth in the coming weeks.
But for now, I think this study should give confidence to U.S. citizens and lawmakers who want assurance that natural gas can be produced safely and responsibly.
as long as the integrity of the well is maintained….
provided that the well casing is intact before the process commences
For me … 2 Big IFs….with statistics in areas where Fracking has been going on for a while showing that this doesn’t always happen.
Now this one…
no different to concerns encountered during the extraction of oil and gas from conventional reservoirs
I think is just flat wrong… The difference in Fracking is that we are “Breaking” the existing geologic integrity” of the formation.
In conventional reservoirs for the most part we are simply “taking advantage” of the existing geologic integrity” of the formation.
Sometimes we pressure or water flood or…. a reservoir but when this is done we are still working inside mother nature’s OIL reservoir
And NOT breaking an OIL reservoir and potentially connecting it to a WATER reservoir.
So I still don’t think it is a good idea. AND if you want to “sell” people like me on the idea, then HOW the Aquifers will be protected needs to be more emphasized than I’ve seen so far.
Inherently the Oil formation, is a near a fold or incline or plume or some thing one can consider as a fault. An irregularty exists. “conventional reservoirs” are found in this manner.
The Bulk of Fracing currenly rapidly expanding NG can be called “unconventional” and the predeposition of the “un” was because horizontil driling was not a known science a short time ago. Nor was known the amount of rewards from such drilling and the fracing fluids were “adjusted to accomplish this method of drilling.
The expansion of this method has developed to running drilling a layout , like a set of spider legs, usually four or more from a relativly small surface area above ground.
Consider this, When a large area above ground becomes saturated with Drillers(Balkans), and vast acreage is sitting on those fraced lines, usually not at a extreme depth, what are the chances finding or and creating a Fault? It’s inevitible.
This was why, in the minds of many, certain areas were closed down where watersheds for large populations (east coast northern)
could have been affected. It’s impossible to truck in water for millions of people.
Fracing at current science level will niether be advanced in it’s saftey/fluid composition/risk… read more »
…for Hydrocarbon-water pollution or the the entry of of pollutants into the air… till the Industry has to comply with Clean Air and Clean Water regulation.
All the confusion and discussion is just to keep that from happening. Because cost would go up for Ng exploration and developement.
Look at what GE has done to hedge its position in the buying of LNG carriers and the price gaureetes they have from the middle east. $2.00 a unit. If recovery costs of NG go up, others will win… I use this to bring out how it’s about the money, it’s about profits, it’s not about anything but profits.
This country has a long history allowing Commercial enterprise to set the stage of expansion in manners fundementaly creating problems far larger than the enterprise and in most cases, cannot be reversed and have negative effects in the majority of the populations.
Fracing will have one of those negative effects.
The time is right for the total utilization of the Shale and its job creating feature. This energy source can rejuvenate the Earth and slow down the onslaught of the environmental decay. New cities feuled by this clean source; jobs. Pipeline networks to span the Earth bringing energy as civilization gets that needed push forward. Its a great day for Shale but where will the skeptics find a chink in its possibilities; a delaying tactic.
It’s always the “time”. It will take 20 years to complete an expansion of the NG network infrastructure. The same could be said about any other energy system infrastructure, be it wind, solar ect.. The choice will be made, imo, by the ones in the loop now, this company and others have huge influence on our representatives in Washington. corporate structure and rights are more influential the individual rights.. so shall it be. But I think the consideration those not here today(unborn) are not the Corporations concern,, after all, Corporations, for all the given rights in the legal system today, aren’t human, and don’t have the same survivorship concerns humans do. They do not get cancer, or drink water, or breathe air, They just exist to create wealth. Responsibility must take into account clean air and water.
Excuse my cyncism, but a vote of confidence from the land of BP? Falling right into line with China there. I also understand Poland is falling in line, whereas France (with its perfect nuclear plant record) and Switzerland have banned hydraulic fracturing.
I look forward to the postings about best practices.
If you watch the independent film “GASLANDS” , There are numerous families who have had problems with their water and the wells it comes out of. Who is responsible for the quality of that water? The FRACKING PROCESS is contaminating the water. You are saying, If the well is structured correctly there is no problem? Who pays to clean up that problem?
Bob, thank you for your comment. Gasland is strong on rhetoric but falls short on facts. I encourage you to look at Energy in Depth’s “Debunking Gasland”, which can be found here: http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/.
So that’s your answer, Mr. Cohen. Who pays for this website of debunking-gasland? Why are energy companies and their FILTHY rich CEOs and board members so intent on destroying this precious earth. I’d rather ride a horse to work, feed it, take more time to get there and not have a “wreck” from texting on a cell phone than damage the earths very crust without knowing exactly the quantifiable risks of doing fracking. How do you KNOW that you won’t cause a new fault or destruction of the very infrastructure on which we live? HOW DO YOU KNOW?? Share the science and the equation so that someone with an 8th grade education can understand it. We’re the ones left with consequences of what you and your other Oil companies do–WE ARE–you can protect yourself and your community with all of your money and influence. I wouldn’t work for an oil company if I had to go without food and that’s a fact. In fact, I’d challenge you to live in harmony with nature for just one day–you couldn’t survive without your limo, your hairdresser,make up artist, publicist and lawyer. Forget the… read more »
…kids–they never mattered in the first place or you wouldn’t be spending 95% of your time away from them. I pray that God wakes you up to what you’re doing and to whom you’re doing it.
There is no “clean”.. there is no “safe”.. there is only cleaner or safer.. as such, any claims to the contrary are subject to great scrutiny, or total dismissal. Combined with exclamations of “national” need and “national security”, any claim is a joke, an advertisement, a lobbying attempt, with no statement based in science, only a profiteering attempt to persuade.
Fracking has no known basis for safety claims.. other than it rarely seems to go wrong. But in this case “rare” is a time affected measure. If one looks, for example the cycle of CO2 generation and dispersal to the highest point in the atmosphere, back to the ground where it may be absorbed into the ocean or plants.. is 1000 years on average. So how long is the cycle for migration through rock, for the 1/2 by volume ave. not recovered fracing fluids, that have many poisons in them, that are not disclosed by the individual companies, that are regulated via Clean Air and Clean Water requirements?
So what is Rare(Rarely)? What WILL.. the transgression rate be? What is not disclosed to the public in all attempts commercially in risk, shows everything is not stated… read more »
…as a rule of thumb for ANY.. commercial enterprise.
Worst case scenarios should be compared to some of the problems that occurred in Texas, Methane in the water supply from home owned water wells, fracking fluids also and hydrocarbon components. Leaving areas of the land where ALL WATER, must be shipped in.
So you think.. so what, we “ship our water now! We treat our water now. Do you want your community to bare the cost of treating heavy metals removal from your water supply?
Lastly,, and with most ingenuity, is the complete avoidance of the issue of the condensation tanks and pressure releases, of Methane and other volatile chemical components at EACH tank… all 600,000> current U.S.A. by count. Look at those U-tube videos on the Texas problem areas, that show the gas releases, in infrared(because the gas is clear… and hence not widely made known). Look at the volume… do the math. One could go far more into the chemistry affecting humans directly due to the expelled gasses from these condensation tank farms, but there is little coming out in the way of disclosure except to say the medical field has, through the attempts to fight cancers by understanding the trigger of of genes towards multiplying(in cancers regard, uncontrollably and invasively), many chemical molecules that have a portion of the molecule that resembles hormones that trigger human gene activation, just like the natural hormones found in the body. We may want to think what the problem of the current trends are showing in expectations of one in every four Americans to experience cancer in their life time currently. Will that rate go up? Does any one think a Corporation, by structure, is afraid it will be cancer victim? Last I understood, every employee can get Cancer, but the Corp goes on.
Will NG be here and the future? Absolutely. Is it because “it’s safe”? Completely wrong. NG will be the future because of corporate profits.
Could NG be safer?, absolutely! Will it happen without close scrutiny? No.
It will require added expense in collection and transfer (finding a way to frac with fluids not poisonous..AT ALL!, changing the “flare-off regulations and expensing recycling of the pressure releases of the NG at the Tank farms.. but the Corps are saying “safe”/”not pose undue risks”, ,, does anyone, really expect to believe, corporate expectations of undue risks are aligned with human expectations of undue risk?
For those with expectations of slowng enviromental decay, those gases I mentioned being a standard releasef rom “farms” Do the math; methane alone, work your scenario on auto combustion and C02 into the atmosphere.. How much is being realesed from the farms.. add in medical costs minimal as to asthma and other areas of concern. Ng as it stands today is not “cleaner”, and may be worse long term, than petrol.
Mr. Cohen,
Imagine this: you are a small boy in a schoolyard playground, and some hands you a ball – maybe about the size of a soccer ball. Except, the ball is not hollow. It is filled with rivers, valleys, mountains, and depths beneath the surface.
You take the ball and decide to reach inside and get some material out. You are very careful not to crack the ball, and make very precise drill holes. You begin to remove the insides of the ball. You remove the fluids, i.e., oil. You convert that to gas and burn it in the environment around the ball. Then, when the oil is getting used up, you decide to go for the rock. You figure out a way to tap into the rock in the inner core, and bring it to the surface to produce more energy. Eventually, the rock runs out, just like the oil.
Mr. Cohen, we live on a precious planet. We should not remove or reduce one molecule of what we have been given without understanding the effects, and having the ability to replace what we damage.
Just thinking about this from an elementary school and mystical perspective. Thanks
I know some people from the Selingsgrove PA area and they invite people to observe the fracking and what is transpiring in that area. There are a lot of jobs and God only knows what the enviroment looks like, everyone has to make judgement as to whether it it is worth the outcome,where to dispose of the fracking by products is item in question, there can be NO expense spared on Safety of water quality, take a good look, what we leave for next generations is on the HEAD of every person
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you even read what you call a study? It reads like a dog and pony show. There was no actual scientific study that they based this on.
So, in the past few years hydraulic fracking has been developed, criticized, supported, expanded, attacked, legitimized, slandered, studied and popularized and this is the final word on it? Natural Gas production companies will proceed because immediately following the invention of the technology no towns were destroyed by gigantic cave ins and no aquifers ignited spontaneously? The testing phase is complete? Well, congratulations. This sounds like a junkie who wakes up after his first binge and says, “See, it’s safe.”
It’s ironic, the fact that you would lay your argument over the delicate shoulders of a single study in the UK on a brand new, frankly inconceivable, but obviously contentious practice, not only doesn’t reassure me but makes me think you sold lead paint and asbestos siding in a previous occupation. “Doctors smoke Chesterfields!”
Parliament’s decision to proceed at full speed until something proves them wrong only perpetuates the cart before the horse paradigm that is both a noble human characteristic and a great flaw.
If ExxonMobil were studying the environmental effects of capturing natural gas 10 FEET UNDER MY GARAGE then I’d accept the UK study as reassurance. When the scale is somewhat larger then I expect 100% consensus on the part of… read more »
…everyone impacted by this method, which is everyone on the continent where it is practiced. The very fact this consensus is not required is of conspicuous relevance here and only emphasizes the importance of voluntary reassurance.
I’m very suspicious of widespread methods that are innocent until proven guilty. Because everyone in the nation is not qualified to study hydraulic fracking, at least in my eyes, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent to the least among us and right now any reasonable jury would find this fracking method scantily clad in legitimate and proportionately scaled study. “Not inherently dangerous?” So, a “process of creating fissures, or fractures, in underground formations” is safe? It sounds like it compromises the integrity of the earth directly beneath the gas recovery facilities. That sounds inherently dangerous. Try again. The stakes are indeed high for our nation, too high to be influenced by a single UK study.
Oggy…..
You make some pretty strong statements that are not supported by fact. Hydraulic fracturing ( or fracing, not “fracKing”, BTW) is not a new technique. This is not a “first binge”. We have been using it since 1945 and well over one million wells in the US have been fraced. Nor is
horizontal drilling a new technique. Reviews of state regulatory records have never found a single case of fresh water well contamination due to fracing. Formations that are being fraced are thousands of feet below fresh water formations, and the wells being fraced have several protective layers of steel surface casing permanently cemented in place to protect fresh aquifers. State regulations are extremely stringent on this issue. Further, the overall integrity of the deeper wellbore is highly dependent on this design. In general there are several more increasingly smaller steel cased strings put in place to permit complete hydraulic isolation of the producing zone. Without this, there would be no producing well!!! So, there is virtually no physical way for the fracturing fluid to reach a shallow fresh water zone. Now, as far as the claim that the fracturing fluid… read more »
… contains millions of gallon of carcinogens, this is a real stretch. The fracturing fluid is over 99% water and a sand proppant. The other 1% is made up of various chemicals, virtually all of which are also used for common household tasks, such as various surfactants, (eg…soap), etc etc. Hydraulic fracturing is a proven, safe technique to allow us to tap the enormous reserves of shale gas and put us on a better energy path.
I look forward to the findings of the NY and Penn. studies that are part of the fracing moratoriums in those states.
We won’t get to the solution till the tax code is changed,whether it’s a flat tax or a VAT.
If taxes were to be distributed in such a manner it would increase more productivity at home.
We as a nation would still be far and away the world leader in the eyes of all peoples.
Elect people who will work for all the people not their own interest.
e.hebert
Well said. While you said “virtually no physical way…” if it does happen it will be detected and repaired before damage occurs. Keep writing Mr. Brummett, you know what you’re talking about. Martin.