bechteldebate1

Natural gas is one of the Earth’s most prominent fossil fuel resources. There are two different kinds of natural gas, biogenic and thermogenic. Biogenic gas is created by organisms in [|marshes], [|bogs] , [|landfills] , and shallow sediments. Deeper in the earth, at greater temperature and pressure, thermogenic gas is created from buried organic material. Before it can be used as a fuel it must extracted from the ground and undergo [|processing] to remove almost all materials other than methane. This process has been the topic of much debate recently as the United States and other countries look to natural gas as a major future energy source. The major controversy is over the extraction of natural gas from the earth. The most common means for this is hydraulic fracturing. This is a process where material (usually liquid, but sometimes air or solids) are forced through tiny cracks in rock formations forcing the layers to spread apart release the trapped natural gas. This technique was first applied in the US to extract oil and gas in 1947 and is now applied all over the world in thousands of wells. The main problem is that fluid used in the frack job will sometimes have unintended consequence on the environment. The sub-issues related to this are the effects of chemicals used in the frack fluid, storage and treatment of flowback water, emissions involved, the lack of regulation of this process, difficulty in controlling aspects of the process such as seepage, and the appropriation of land for drilling. Those who are affected by this process are neighbors living near drilling sites, wildlife in the area, everyone downstream, the corporations making it happen, and the governments (both local and national) who allow it to happen. An article strongly contrasting opposition to natural gas fracturing presented by the film // Gasland // by Josh Fox is the letter to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences from Lee Fuller, the executive director of Energy in Depth (EID), debating the legitimacy of the movie as a documentary. Fuller takes the position that Fox’s film contains falsehoods and provides excellent debate material for the production of natural gas. It starts off with how Fox has misinterpreted laws and regulations presented in the film. According to the document natural gas production is far from a booming new industry. Actually more natural gas wells were developed in 1982 than there were last year. Also, Fox’s claim that the 2005 Clean Energy Bill was pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney is untrue. In fact the bill was supported by nearly three-fourths of the Senate. Fuller also makes the point that, “hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the states.” The article also covers how the process of gas fracking has been mischaracterized. It makes the point that greater than 99.5% of the fracking mixture is comprised of water and sand and that the few other specific additives have been released to officials. Furthermore, some companies in Pennsylvania have begun recycling an average of more than 60% of the water used and drilling with compressed air is becoming increasingly popular. Also, many companies store flowback water in steel tanks rather than earthen pits, but this got no mention in the movie. Other falsehoods addressed in this letter are the inclusion of endangered species in Wyoming, the report on Drunkard Creek and Dish Texas, and exactly what methane is being found in drinking water. Fuller argues that neither the pronghorn antelope, mule deer, nor sage grouse found near methane production sites in Wyoming are endangered as Fox claims. There are species of pronghorn and mule deer which are endangered, but these are not found in Wyoming. Also, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service the sage grouse has a robust population in Wyoming and is not on any endangered species list. The problem of the reporting at Drunkard Creek is that Fox used images of dead fish which according to the EPA were killed by an algal bloom blamed on discharges from coal mines. The problem with Dish Texas is that according to the Texas Department of State Health Services residents exposure to certain contaminants was not higher than that of the general US population. Lastly, Fuller argues that the accusation of people’s poor quality drinking water on natural gas fracking is absurd. For one the subsurface regions where fracking occurs is thousands of feet below formations that carry potable water and, “these strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock.” Furthermore, dissolved methane found in well water in Fort Lupton, CO was shown to be biogenic (naturally occurring) according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Also, drinking water with dissolved methane is not harmful and therefore unregulated by the EPA. This document is not the best source for all the benefits of natural gas exploitation, but it is an excellent source of material that can be used to counter many of the arguments against it. Nearly every point in the document is well defended with its sources, but there still are a few of the arguments that we should be critical of. For one, it makes the assumption several times that the technology for gas fracturing used today has been around for a long time. This is far from true. It also misses that point that many toxins can be harmful in very small quantities and insufficient research has been done to actually characterize the procedure as safe. A perfect article to argue the flipside of this debate is the rebuttal put together by Josh Fox specifically addressing the issues mentioned above. This is another excellent source of debate material. Fox begins by identifying the EID as a PR firm/lobbying group funded by the American Petroleum (shows clear bias). He then goes on to address specific instances of falsehood in the EID arguments, which are quite numerous. First he states that to claim the hydraulic fracturing has been used for 60 years is misleading. This is because new techniques are far different from those used 60 years ago. This is because of increased fracking pressure, higher volumes of water used, more complex chemical cocktails, and use of horizontal drilling. Also, even though more natural gas wells were drilled in 1982 than any other single year, between 2005 and 2009 more wells were drilled than any other period. With 99,000 gas wells in existence, there certainly is a regulation challenge. Another point Fox argues is the commonly used line in industry, “There has never been a proven case of water contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing.” This statement is true, but heavily misguiding. For one there are no proven cases of water contamination because there has been little research done on the topic and the hydraulic fracturing is actually only one small part of the entire gas drilling operation. However, substances related to drilling such as arsenic, barium, and strontium have been found in drinking water just after natural gas drilling. This is not a complete proof, but is certainly is some evidence. One of the strongest positions that Fox takes in the article is that even though some of the natural gas found in people’s drinking water has been shown to be biogenic, this is not true of every case and biogenic gas can migrate as a result of gas drilling. Several experts and the investigation in Dimock provide evidence for this point. Furthermore, even though natural gas is not the most harmful when dissolved in water, the same source quoted in EID goes on to state that natural gas does become dangerous when it is released into people’s homes where it can be ignited or cause respiratory damage. Another point made in the article is that even though a partial list of fracking chemicals has been made public, it is still incomplete and most substances have not been tested by the government. To add even more to the argument, even if fracking fluids are only 0.5% chemicals, this means that there will be roughly 20 tons of chemicals put into the ground for every million gallons of water used. This certainly is significant. Also, an argument made here is that even though the “endangered” animals mentioned in // Gasland // are not specifically on the endangered species list, their populations are still being damaged by gas production. Even though they are not on the list yet, they may be in the near future. Lastly, a point made by this rebuttal is that air pressure fracking is far from a solution. Leaders in the industry even agree that it’s only use is for low-pressure formations near the surface of the earth. This technology may have been increasingly popular in 1965, but not so much today. All in all, this document makes many very useful arguments pertaining to why natural gas fracking should not be allowed. It includes many experts and strong sources of information for debate. The third article I have reviewed for debate is a // Life Cycle Assessment // of natural gas provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). This document makes a third party assessment of the process and provides a lot of information that could be used by both sides in the debate. In this analysis NREL focuses on the entire natural gas production system and not simply on fracturing. It can also be easily compared to similar analyses of coal, petroleum, and other fuels. The first important figures are that natural gas currently accounts for 22% of energy consumed in the US and the Department of Energy expects this to increase to 33% by 2020. This shows just how important this fuel source currently is (similar to energy consumption from coal and less than petroleum). Another useful figure is that 99% of the emissions are carbon dioxide followed by methane, non-methane hydrocarbons, nitrous oxide, sulfur oxide, carbon monoxide, particulates, and benzene. The top two of these are known greenhouse gasses and most of the rest have harmful effects. The most important thing that I found in this source was the energy efficiency of natural gas production. For every MJ of energy used in production we gain roughly 0.4 MJ of electricity (40%). This is not terribly efficient and is far less than renewable sources, but it is somewhat higher than coal production (also less than petroleum). Lastly, according to this study, the total amount of water pollutants found was, “extremely small (0.01 g/kWh) compared to the other emissions.” I don’t think this is a very good comparison to make since these are pretty different things, but is potentially an argument that the “for” side could make. Furthermore, NREL argues that the extraction is only responsible for 29% of the total waste, making it the second largest polluting part of the operation behind pipe transport. I am fairly skeptical of this after hearing about the huge debate of fracturing, but it is possible that has been blown out of proportion. Anyway, this article adds some very new and different angles to the debate. It may not be the most useful for arguing one side of the other, but I still think it is an important part of the story. Citations: Fox, Josh. "Affirming Gasland." Letter to Audience, Press, and Peers. July 2010. Gasland the Movie. Web. 26 Mar. 2011. . Fuller, Lee O. "Debunking Gasland." Letter to Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. 1 Feb. 2011. Energy In Depth. Web. 26 Mar. 2011. . Spath, Pamela, and Margaret Mann. // Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generation System //. Rep. no. NREL/TP-570-27715. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010. Life Cycles Database. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. .