Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Shale Gas and Hydrofracturing
T
where tap water does, indeed, burn in proximity to a fracking operation. Tap water can burn when natural gas seeps into water wells from improperly constructed or maintained wells as a result of fracking. For example, Osborn et al. (2011) found that 51 of 60 private wells within one kilometer of new natural gas sites were contaminated with deep methane of shale origin in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York (“Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi:1073/pnas.1100682108). Corresponding author, Robert B. Jackson, Duke University, said, “I saw a homeowner light his water on fire − the biggest risk is flammability and explosion” (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=frackingfor-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells&print=true). The PNAS article is by no means the last word on the subject. Certainly, there’s more to learn about how contamination of wells may occur. One possible explanation is leakage from flowback ponds into subsurface, shallow aquifers. There are follow-up studies being undertaken, including one by EPA. But it is also clear that shale gas wells must be properly constructed, maintained, and plugged after operation. Inspections and significant penalties are needed during and after shale gas production to prevent leaks. Identity of fracking chemicals must be disclosed by gas companies to EPAthe public’s safety overrides the need for proprietary privilege here. And the entire operation near drinking water aquifers should never have been exempted from regulation under the Clean Water Act by Congress. That 2005 travesty should be repealed immediately. If such regulations are implemented, I can become an advocate of clean gas development in the U.S. as a bridging fuel to a more sustainable, renewable energy future.
he greatest energy story of the 21st century (so far) is the incredible ability to extract gas and oil from tight shale deposits in the U.S. and throughout the world. Advances in horizontal drilling technology and hydrofracturing allow natural gas to escape from shale formations following high pressure treatment, i.e. “fracking” with sand, water and chemicals. Something like 1000 trillion cubic feet of “new” gas could be produced in North America alone by such technology, enough gas for several decades (Shale Gas Will Rock the World, May 10, 2010, Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html? KEYWORDS=Shale+Gas+will+rock+the+world). What a game changer! With fracking, natural gas prices have remained low at less than $2.50 per million BTU. It is creating a new mindset about our energy future as construction of gasfired power plants displaces plans for nuclear, coal, and renewables. Happily, natural gas plants emit only half the greenhouse gases of coal-fired power. Gas is cheap, relatively clean, domestic, and plentiful, so why is hydraulic fracturing so controversial? Answer: Government’s role in grossly underregulating the industry. By failing to properly regulate, federal and state governments have allowed pits, ponds, and lagoons of “flowback” water to scar the landscape in the vicinity of some operations. Fracking chemicals, petrochemicals, and metals and radionuclides from source rock cause major environmental burdens if not properly treated or deep-injected. Gas can seep from well heads and pollute the air, and improperly constructed wells can leak gas from the shale formation to overlying aquifers. Since 2004, thousands of cases of contaminated water wells have been adjudicated in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (www.sciam.com). Long after the gas has been extracted, failure to properly plug wells could create leakage to neighbors’ water wells for decades. On February 3, I was asked to testify before the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment about the need for science reform at EPA. But the Chair of the Subcommittee, Representative Andy Harris, R-Md, was more interested in defending fracking than promoting EPA reform, and he objected to a previous editorial of mine in ES&T titled “Regulate, Baby, Regulate” (ES&T, August 2010). Chairman Harris took me to task for asserting that fracturing was “causing tap water to burn”, and he asked for evidence to support the assertion. Furthermore, he demanded that I describe how standards are employed by ES&T to ensure accuracy and appropriate communication of scientific uncertainties in journal editorials. First of all, regarding ES&T journal policies, it is an editorial (an opinion piece) and I am entitled to write my opinion that hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development are under need of tighter regulation. Facts are checked by ACS staff prior to publication. Regarding the cause of tap water burning, it is true that shallow biogenic (natural) gas leakage can cause tap water to burn, and one needs to investigate each case carefully. Here, I was referring to a particular scene in the documentary Gasland © 2012 American Chemical Society
■
Jerald L. Schnoor,* Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): I am a member of the EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.
Published: April 5, 2012 4686
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3011767 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 4686−4686
