I think PA is pretty comparable in terms of similar surface features
and being the same formation. While it is hard for people in the green
Northeast to identify with Texas or Wyoming, there are important
lessons to be learned from there, especially since it is the same
companies , making and not keeping the same promises. The Barnett
shale in Texas is considered geologically comparable, but not a
landscape we can identify with (tho they are drilling in residential
areas of Ft Worth).
Jon's final paragraph is consistent with the position of Shaleshock
(and myself personally--I love "cooking with gas"). While some
individual members of Shaleshock want no fracking anywhere (and there
is natural gas here and elsewhere which does not need to be fracked),
we all feel that fracking should only happen in ways that are safe for
the local environment (ecosystems and all who live there).
I'm a strong supporter of YIMBYism (yes, in my back yard). Heck, I
even thought we should have hydropower at Ithaca Falls. In principal,
I agree with Jon and George. I usually agree with them on the details,
too. But I think there are some "details" involved with fracking that
move us beyond general principles such as "YIMBY" and "natural gas is
cleaner-burning and more efficient than oil-based products."
There is fracking of wells which get water from sedimentary
formations. One of the world leaders in this useful process is based
here in Tompkins County (John Rice, the Well Doctor). There are
vertical gas wells which have been fracked to free up additional gas
after the initial extraction. And then there is HORIZONTAL fracking
for gas tightly embedded in shale. A different animal altogether. Lots
of materials available from SHaleshock--tho I agree images and info
from PA mean more than ones from WY or TX.
Aside from the sorts of local damage that can occur with Marcellus
fracking, I have an additional concern about its carbon footprint
cradle to grave.
Fracking a la Marcellus means
--exploratory testing with huge, heavy seismic trucks, which get
moved around the country from gas field to gas field (probably on the
backs of tractor trailers, maybe even on trains). The testing crews
probably fly around. BTW, another way of testing is drilling lots of
bore holes 100' down to see what the geology looks like near the
surface--which could puncture aquifers and drain perched aquifers or
allow lower, salty water to migrate (perhaps under natural pressure)
into higher, sweeter aquifers.
--leasing means the land agents (leasing agents) probably do a lot of
both driving and flying.
--drilling means large rigs moving into the area and then from well
to well; the drilling process uses lots of fossil fuels once in place
--crews: not many local jobs: since many wells are not productive,
others only for a short time, most crews move from well to well or
field to field (in this case the entire mid-Atlantic is one "field").
I assume that, if they live elsewhere, crews will not only drive or
fly here, they'll be going home for visits as often as possible.
--fracking means pressure: lots of compressors PER WELL, again many
heavy items moved great distances, but also using lots of diesel 24/7
as long as the well is "in play." I've heard that this varies widely
and can last years if the field is productive enough.
--water: millions of gallons per well per fracking (a repeat process
with a productive well) usually trucked to and form the well,
sometimes for great distances
The last two are probably the most important, but the earlier items
might be what would tip the footprint to "more energy in than out."
And that's just off the top of my head AND it leaves out the carbon
footprint of creating the equipment, mining and processing the clay
and salt (Hallibuton's specialties), and processing and transporting
all the chemicals used.
Oh yes, I forgot the energy needed to build all the connecting
pipelines and roads to service them. Lots of heavy equipment. Even
if that's a one time expense, so many of these wells be be relatively
short-term (as opposed to long-term long-distance pipelines, whose
embodied energy gets amortized over the life of the pipeline).
Can't imagine we're getting more energy value from fracked gas than is
going into its extraction from oil products. But Cheney and friends
are sure making money coming and going (literally) on this one . . .
Margaret
On Sep 3, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Jon Bosak wrote:
So.... Let's tread carefully here. What I'm taking away from
this thread is the danger of undercutting our position by using
data from places that aren't directly comparable with ours.
I'm beginning to suspect that the most constructive goal would be
to control hydrofracking in a way that makes it proceed as slowly
as possible and with as little damage to the environment as
possible. Maybe we should be focusing on that.
Jon
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
