« Back to Home Page

Sign up for the 3p daily dispatch:

Why Shale Gas and Fracking May Be Part of Our Clean Energy Future

Boyd Cohen | Friday April 29th, 2011 | 8 Comments

I must admit that I have been heavily focused on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydro and biofuels as the medium-long-term path towards meeting our growing energy needs while minimizing our impacts on the climate and the environment.  And recently I spoke out against nuclear’s role in the long-term energy mix.

I am still a big believer in renewables as a key part of our energy mix. However we have yet to scale renewables to the point that we no longer need fossil fuels.  In the U.S. for example, only 7% of total energy consumption comes from renewables.

Source: Naturalgas.org

In our book, Climate Capitalism, Hunter Lovins and I make a strong argument for the potential for renewables in the short term to supply most of our energy needs.  I stand by our claims.  However, I also am increasingly convinced that we need to clean our fossil fuel supply ASAP.

For too long we have been dependent on coal and oil to meet our energy needs.  Both of these fuels are relatively high in calorific value yet too high in carbon emissions.   While I have written about ways to clean up the coal industry, both from the supply side through projects like coal mine methane as well as from the energy production side, mostly from co-firing coal with low-carbon biofuels like torrefied wood, I believe we need to take a serious look at gas, and particularly unconventional gas reserves.

Natural gas already represents about ¼ of the U.S. energy mix.  Burning natural gas produces less CO2 emissions than the main sources of fossil fuel.

A few weeks ago Time Magazine’s cover provocatively asked: “Could Shale Gas Power the World.”

As Time Magazine reported, the potential energy reserves from shale gas could be a boon for domestic energy producers. “The usually sober U.S. Energy Information Administration more than doubled its estimates of recoverable domestic shale-gas resources to 827 trillion cu. ft. (23 trillion cu m), more than 34 times the amount of gas the U.S. uses in a year. Together with supplies from conventional gas sources, the U.S. may now have enough gas to last a century at current consumption rates. (By comparison, the U.S. has less than nine years of oil reserves.)”

As reported here on TriplePundit last week, the Clean Energy Trends 2011 Report noted growth in renewables but also suggested that unconventional natural gas will become an increasingly important part of the energy mix.  This was backed up by a recent article in Grist highlighting the energy mix projections created by Black & Veatech.

The B&V report suggests that by 2035 coal will dwindle as a percentage of our energy supply while gas, particularly shale gas, will grow significantly.

Source: Grist.org

Even President Obama has recently indicated significant support for natural gas as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

However, before we dive in head first to the new gold rush of shale gas we also must seriously consider the environmental impacts of shale gas production.  As I began to write this post on Earth Day, a leak was been reported in a shale gas operation in Pennsylvania.

Environmentalists have been having a field day criticizing the hydraulic fracturing “fracking” technique and calling for a ban on shale gas exploration.  A new documentary called Gasland also sheds light on the environmental risks of fracking.  I haven’t seen it although I have ordered it so I will report back.

One of the reasons for my recent interest in unconventional gas is that my company has partnered with one of the leading U.S. experts in directional drilling, Target Drilling to help us execute coal mine methane projects in Latin America.  Target Drilling is an expert in directional drilling and aside from coal mine methane, they have significant experience with coal bed methane and more recently, shale gas drilling as well.

While many environmentalists have raised concerns about the chemicals in the fluids used for fracking, those chemicals make up less than .5% of the total fluids used and the chances for those fluids to penetrate nearby areas passing through layers of rock is highly remote.  Per the above-mentioned Time magazine article: “I don’t think it’s scientifically plausible to suggest that could happen,” says Don Siegel, a hydrogeologist at Syracuse University. In a 2009 study, the Ground Water Protection Council, a consortium that includes industry and state regulators, reported that the chance of aquifer contamination was extremely low.”

What Target Drilling, Time Magazine, and other experts have told me is that the real environmental risk is from the flowback water which returns after the fracking fluid has fractured the shale rock.  The flowback water is highly salinated and if not properly contained at the point of exit through quality cementing, or not properly transported or treated, environmental impacts can be substantial.

Consol Energy was recently accused of hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for its improper disposal of flowback water which affected Dunkard Creek near the border of West Virginia and Penssylvania.  Consol Energy was ordered to pay $6 million in fines and has since committed to the development of a $200 million wastewater treatment system.

So, what is my take?  Shale gas poses a gigantic business opportunity for energy companies around the world.  It also has the potential to be an important, long-term energy resource which could help us ween ourselves from foreign oil and reduce our carbon footprint.  It is also highly controversial and will continue to be so as long as companies act irresponsibly.  As is the case in almost every industry, there will be leaders and laggards in the social and environmental responsibility of shale gas exploration and production.  We need to pass rigorous regulations in the U.S. and around the globe and hold producers accountable to those standards so that shale gas can be part of the clean energy solution.

***

Boyd Cohen is the CEO of CO2 IMPACT, a carbon origination company based in Vancouver, Canada and Bogota, Colombia. Boyd is also the co-author of Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change.

Twitter: boydcohen

This series will use the hashtag #climatcaptlsm

 


▼▼▼      8 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • http://500gallons.com 500Gallons

    Another great post from Boyd here! What if any I wonder are the environmental impacts of gas vs. oil consumption. How do they compare when we look at it from a usage view point as opposed to a sourcing viewpoint

  • http://www.co2impact.com Boyd Cohen

    Thanks for the feedback 500gallon. I actually had a chart in the post that compares gas, coal and oil on emissions. Gas is significantly cleaner burning than the other fossil fuels. The chart that was in the post shows that per BTU of energy input, Natural Gas has 117,000, Oil has 164,000 and Coal has 208.000.

  • http://Www.nohotair.co.uk Nick grealy

    Smart news from someone who can see the reality of our energy choices, as opposed to the Gasland emotional approach.
    The Gasland ultra view is one of shale as being permanently dangerous. Odd how some of those who describe themselves as progressives, choose to ignore the concept when it comes to energy.

  • Mumford

    The environmental problems associated with flowback water can be addressed by technology developed by Chevron/Halliburton that is currently licensed to a Canadian company called GASFRAC. Liquid propane is used as the fracking fluid instead of water. The liquid propane turns to a gas after fracking and flows right back into the sales line with the other hydrocarbons where it can be 100 percent recycled. Apparently because there is no liquid left behind (50% of “FRAC water” stays in the formation) the well is more efficient as well.

  • dimntd

    I live in Pennsylvania. The water has been polluted beyond the areas which have fracking operations. The process of fracking is not green and it is impossible to contain the fracking chemicals once they are pumped into the ground. Drinking wells were polluted by fracking chemicals as were the waterways before the well blew out. Housing values in those areas have plummeted. How will the laws be enforced if the Government chooses the money from the gas and oil companies over the welfare of the citizens.

    Natural gas from shale worse for global warming than coal, Cornell study says
    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/shale_gas_worse_for_global_war.html

    Fracking Fluids Made Up of Toxic, Cancer Causing Chemicals, Report Finds
    http://www.newsinferno.com/health-concerns/toxic-substances/fracking-fluids-made-up-of-toxic-cancer-causing-chemicals-report-finds/

    Firm finds fracking chemicals in wells in northeastern Pennsylvania Published: Friday, September 17, 2010
    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/09/firm_finds_fracking_chemicals.html

    New DEP policy: no violations against drillers without approval from the top
    From January 2008 to June 2010, DEP issued more than 1,400 violations against drillers in the Marcellus. It issued 3,314 Marcellus permits last year, and 590 in the first two months this year.
    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/new_dep_policy_no_violations_a.html

    Gov. Tom Corbett says Pennsylvania gets tens of millions in revenue from Marcellus shale without a severance tax
    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/gov_tom_corbett_says_pennsylva.html

  • Damp

    Mr. Cohen – I suggest you view the film, talk to some of the organizations that are working to maintain water safety, and then rethink your sentence about the impact of the “produced” water, as it is called. It is not just salts but various other types of chemicals (some of which are proven carcinogens), that are present in the water. Second, the film shows that the water is not properly handled after the fracking process, and further, that the condensate towers and collection ponds themselves emit gasses. Finally, go tell the people whose wells are now toxic or have exploded or whose health is deteriorating that they should just trust the gas industry. I live in New York City, and I am relieved to know that efforts are underway to ensure that New York State extends its moratorium on fracking, because the fallout from contamination from the Catskills/Delaware watershed that serves the millions would be truly catastrophic. The future must lie in using technology for the better, not in looking back to put lipstick on pigs.

  • Joe

    This is great! Shale gas!! Low emissions, therefore slowing the spread of global warming. But wait, thats right, we need drinking water too. Hmmm. Gotta abandon my house, but I can get cheap natural gas!! Count me out.

  • coal reports

    Have you seen whats been reported in coal industry and coal reports lately? The latest coal market news is that emerging countries are predicting to use large amounts of thermal coal for power generation and coal mining for steel production and they are investing heavily onshore and offshore to secure the coal they need so that they can meet increasing demand for electricity and steel.  Cherry of http://www.coalportal.com