The truth about Hydraulic Fracturing

[Tinker]

So apparently New York is to natural gas what the Permian basin is to Petroleum. Hydraulic Fracturing is a huge issue here and people are really up in arms against it and want a blanket ban. Now, I'm ok with banning it near the water supply, but unsure how I feel about a blanket ban.

Anyone have any info about the real science of this?

[crashtech]

The truth is an elusive beast. I think a cautious approach is called for, and keeping the process farther away from aquifers that serve large populations, for now, seems prudent. A larger body of evidence is needed to show that the instances of alleged well contamination are actually statistical outliers, or cases of fraud.

It seems to me that once the need becomes dire, that gas WILL be extracted (risk/benefit, etc.), and it may be up to the municipal water providers to add the capability to test for and remove any additional impurities that might be introduced by the process.

If this process does prove to sometimes introduce gasses and contaminants into the water table, it will be rural well owners that get the shaft, so to speak, not city dwellers.

[Tinker]

Part of the argument in New York is that essentially there is no where in the entire state that is not serving as someone's aquifer.

[crashtech]

I've read a lot of conflicting information about fracking. Theoretically, fracking can be done in a very safe manner, far below the aquifers. But the recent verdict re BP would tend to make me gun shy about allowing this sort of thing, if it were up to me, because it seems more likely that any company involved in performing sloppy work while extracting hydrocarbon resources will not be held responsible. Keeping NYC's famed water supply clean seems like a pretty high stakes game to me.

[Tinker]

[Torchwood]

This is the carbon age - not only does it drive prosperity, it even feeds the world (half the nitrogen fixed comes from natural gas).

Nuclear is off the agenda, renewables can only supply a fraction of the energy needs, and cheap solar is at least a decade away. As long as methane leaks are contained, gas emits far less carbon per joule/BTU than oil or especially coal. What alternative do you want, Tinker?

It's a live issue in Europe as well - a shale gas boom has started in Poland, which seems to have the biggest reserves, and also potential in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Germany. Until now natural gas prices have not delinked from oil as they have in the US. The UK does not seem to have much onshore, but a lot offshore (which is probably too expensive at present).

[Tinker]

I guess I have some tolerance for it being in someone else's backyard. A small town with methane water is not as catastrophic as NYC with the same.

From what I have heard a lot of the methane bursts in Pennsylvania are actually naturally occurring. But that could just be the corporate propaganda. It also could have some merit to it. If they are fracking 9000 under the water table with chemicals that are generally heavier than water, that's fine. Though I guess the methane generally would not be. These are the hazards of the natural world.

I'm ambivalent, because New York could certainly use the jobs. I think I am not against a blanket ban, just a ban on it being anywhere near the NYC water supply.

[noddy]

we have it in queensland and nsw and its causing alot of "whoops" in regards both pollution of aquifers and is also draining them due to new cracks formed.

im a tad cynical on these, not sure the upside is worth the downside - especially when it comes to freshwater in australia.

[AzariLoveIran]