Matthew Skwarczek

Oh for the Love of Frack: Why Drilling for Gas is a Slow Death

The modern world is in a crisis: we must change our way of powering our technology,

especially power production, or our planet will slowly die. The fuel that has propelled mankind

into this modern age, petroleum, is becoming more and more expensive and unpopular by the

day--but it's become far too commonplace to just be simply eliminated. Coal--popular, plentiful,

and cheap in America--is even worse for the environment; bio-fuels, though spreading into the

commonplace more and more, often just aren't energy rich enough for using them every day

(although butanol is a promising new kid on the block); nuclear power, never obscenely popular,

has been dealt a devastating blow by the current crisis in Japan. However, the US may have

stumbled across a solution: natural gas. It's extremely plentiful in America, which means less

dependency on foreign countries for fuel; it burns cleaner than oil or coal; and because it would

be an American industry, it could stimulate the economy by creating more jobs here. It would

seem then, that natural gas is the new Golden Boy of fuels--or is it? As it happens, the new

energy prescription may have a few nasty side-effects.

Most drilling companies, when they drill for natural gas, use a technique known as high-

volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking: this relatively new method of drilling

uses highly pressurized water, mixed with sand and chemicals, to break apart the rocks that hold

the natural gas in tiny, bubble-like spaces (see Figure 1 for more information); the reason

hydrofracking was even developed is because the largest deposit of natural gas in the US, the

equivalent of 9 billion barrels of oil, is locked in shale deposits in Pennsylvania in something

called the Marcellus (Bryan Walsh, "The Gas Dilemma"), and no other drilling method would

have been able to get through the shale safely. As with any action which involves spraying the

inside of the Earth with chemicals, this method carries sever environmental risks, the main one

being toxic waste. The chemicals that gush

up from a natural gas well drilled by

hydrofracking include, among other

wonderfully nasty things: benzene (a known

carcinogen) and radioactive radium (and

other radioactive elements). Mind you, this

doesn't include the chemicals used in the

hydrofracking process itself--chemicals

which, by law, of all things, the drilling

companies aren't required to release

(Walsh); there are wells that have 25 times

the federal limit of uranium present, and

others that have 1500 times (yes, 1500!) the federal limit of radium

(NY Times). From the drill site, the contaminated water gets sent to

water treatment plants--and that is where hope is truly lost.

The reason the water being sent to water treatment plants is a sign of the Apocalypse is

due to the fact that the water treatment plants aren't treating the water enough. The New York

Times reported that the EPA, along with the drilling industry, concluded that "radioactivity in

drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways" (Ian Urbina, "Regulation

Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers"); there are 71,000 active wells in Pennsylvania

alone, and yet the treatment plants (both sewage and water treatment plants) can't remove

Figure 1: How hydraulic fracturing ("hydrofracking") is carried out.

Source: TIME Magazine

enough of the radiation before discharging the water to meet federal regulations, although it must

be said that the federal standard for "safe" radiation levels isn't exactly...clear (Urbina). I would

argue, however, that water which contains any increased level of radiation should not be

discharged: depending on the type of radiation, the ingestion could lead to internal cancers, as

seen in the Native Americans in the reserves out West: their drinking water is full of radiation,

and the radiation is of the type that can't escape the body once ingested, causing cancer and who

knows what else. What's even more appalling, is that they're dumping the waste in rivers and

bodies of water--as if we didn't have enough problems with our waterways, with all the invasive

species and pollution, their dumping water full of radiation and God knows what else?! In

northeastern Pennsylvania, where the second largest shale gas (natural gas trapped in shale) in

the world is located, one couple had their entire pond more or less utterly die: and their livestock,

the pride and livelihood of this farming couple, were quarantined because they drank wastewater

from the hydrofracking that had been laced with strontium, another radioactive element (Walsh).

But wait, there's even more nasty revelations coming up!

Ironically, natural gas might have environmental problems of its own. Although natural

gas (which is, technically, methane) when burned only produces about half the carbon dioxide as

coal and approximately 30% less than oil, some initial studies have determined that the natural

gas wells leak--and the methane that escapes actually traps heat better than carbon dioxide,

although it dissipates much more rapidly (Tom Zeller, Jr., "Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own

Environmental Problems"). Then, of course, there's the danger of spillage: one couple in

Pennsylvania had their water catch fire due to the methane in it (Walsh)--I don't think that's what

they had in mind when they said they wanted "fire water". One of the reasons that gas leaks is

because of poor cementing--haven't I heard this explanation before? Oh yeah: from BP, when the

Gulf got inundated with oil! We live in a society where we can't even get cement to last for

years: there are skyscrapers probably older than me out on the streets of New York that are still

standing, and we can't even keep GAS contained?

However, natural gas is still a viable fuel source, if only because it provides a rest stop on

the highway to better power sources: and considering how long the trip is, we need every rest

stop we can get. One way to reduce natural gas' effect on the environment would be to use some

other drilling method. Luckily, engineers have scientific ADHD, and so have managed to create

an alternate method of drilling that would significantly reduce natural gas drilling's effect on the

environment--and this one's actually cool. The solution to hydrofracking is using high-energy

lasers (although not quite like the one in Star Trek): developed by Argonne National Laboratory,

the technology is still being fully tested, but has major possibility. According to their analysis,

the average natural gas well costs around $400,000 to drill, but depending on the terrain, and by

extension the amount of time the rig stays on site, the costs can build up even more (Argonne

National Laboratory). A laser has several cost advantages compared to a typical natural gas

drilling well: first, although hydrofracking is becoming more and more common, mechanical

drill bits are still being used (EIA.gov)--a laser does not need to have a mechanical drill bit

replaced; secondly, the way the laser melts the rock might potentially create a kind of sheath in

the well itself, meaning that cementing, a weak point in the armor of natural gas, might not even

be necessary (Argonne National Laboratory). But, one might say, doesn't the natural gas have to

well (no pun intended) up for the drillers to gain access to it, meaning the natural sheath that the

laser makes the exact opposite of what is needed? Technically, no, because the only thing gas

needs is a way out, since it's lighter than air: a smooth-walled well, which a laser creates as it

melts through rock, would be the perfect way to ensure the absence of leaks. But what about

obscenely tiny packets of gas? Not to worry: scientists in Zurich have managed to make a laser

that is 30 millionths of a meter long (about 1/7th of the wavelength of the light it emits!)

(PhysOrg.com)--making drilling for gas packets like playing a Star Wars video game.

Even if the nerd-gasmic technique of drilling with lasers is fully developed in the next

year or so, it might be too late for our environment, and natural gas usage for transportation is

ramping up. I have personally seen a garbage truck at Northwestern which ran on natural gas: it

is here that another wrinkle of the Methane Memoir is exposed--how to make natural gas useful

as a fuel. Although natural gas can, and is used, in its gaseous form, that isn't useful in terms of

vehicle fuel, which would be arguably the most influential use of something as a fuel--instead,

the gas must be compressed and liquefied. This is another waste of energy, because the gas must

be cooled to approximately -260 ℉ . Also, although natural gas is mainly methane, other gases

are present as well, such as butane and propane, meaning additional processing is necessary to

make the gas able to be used in every-day society (EIA.gov). As Mariah Carey explained, we

need a hero; one might have been found in the most unlikely of places. Although bio-fuels are

becoming more and more common (just look at all the new FlexFuel vehicles out on the roads

today), they don't have the same energy density as gasoline, meaning penalties in gas mileage

("Butanol fuel")--ethanol only has about 60% of the energy per liter as gasoline. But, Scottish

scientists have managed to turn the devil of the highways into a potential angel at the pump:

alcohol. A team in Scotland managed to create a butanol bio-fuel from the by-products of

whiskey production (Cheers!); if you're asking why butanol is better than ethanol, one must first

understand the chemical structure of the two compounds. Butanol has 90% of the energy density

of gasoline, because it has more carbons in its structure, so it can make more energy than

ethanol. Even better for butanol is that it isn't affected by water as ethanol, and more

importantly, causes less corrosion than ethanol, meaning butanol could potentially use the

existing gasoline pipelines; finally, butanol-gasoline blends are more stable, in terms of

separation, than ethanol-gasoline blends ("Butonal fuel").

If the prospect of pumping an alcohol industry support into your car doesn't sit right in

the "morals" department, there is another, more cosmically eco-friendly fuel that's on the

horizon. A small UK company by the name of Cella Energy has managed to potentially save the

entire world with one development: making every car in the world run on hydrogen. For those

who don't know, the reason hydrogen is "zero emissions" is because the only product from

hydrogen reacting with oxygen, the "combustion" part of "internal combustion", is water, which

forms 75% of our planet. Cella Energy has managed to create the parthenogenesis of the fuel

world by wrapping hydrogen compounds in nanospheres: these nanospheres are then burned

normally in the car's engine, without having to be stored in specific conditions (Clay Dillow,

"UK Energy Firm Claims Its Hydrogen-Nanobead-Based Synthetic Gas Can Burn in Your Car

with Zero Emissions"). The Miraculous Masterpiece still needs a few brushstrokes to be fully

complete, but when this fuel is fully functional, the Earth will be able to shove its natural gas

back where it came from.

Natural gas, while a better fuel source than coal or oil, has been tainted by the menace of

hydrofracking. But, there is hope, in the form of sci-fi drilling techniques and other fuel sources;

our planet has suffered much, and will continue to suffer unless we can successfully manage to

merge modernity with Mother Nature. For frack's sake, we cannot afford a fuel which has a

higher cost to simply obtain than actually using it--it's time for a change. Pick your poison, or

rather, cure, dear reader: Skywalker, whiskey, or Hail Mary?

Works Cited

"Butanol Fuel." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 10 Apr. 2011.

Web. 16 Apr. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel>.

Dillow, Clay. "UK Energy Firm Claims Its Hydrogen-Nanobead-Based Synthetic Gas Can Burn

in Your Car with Zero Emissions | Popular Science." Popular Science | New Technology,

Science News, The Future Now. Popular Science, 27 Jan. 2011. Web. 4 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/uk-energy-firm-claims-its-hydrogen-

microbead-based-synthetic-gas-can-burn-your-car-zero-emissions>.

"EIA Energy Kids - Natural Gas." Energy Kids. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Web.

16 Apr. 2011. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=natural_gas_home-

basics>.

"Laser Oil & Gas Well Drilling [Laser Applications Laboratory] - Nuclear Engineering Division

(Argonne)." Nuclear Engineering Division of Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne).

US Department of Energy, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.ne.anl.gov/facilities/lal/laser_drilling.html>.

"Toxic Contamination From Natural Gas Wells." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26

Feb. 2011. Web. 16 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-map.html?hp>.

Urbina, Ian. "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers." New York Times. The

New York Times, 26 Feb. 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?scp=1&sq=Regulation%20Lax

%20as%20Gas%20Wells%E2%80%99%20Tainted%20Water%20Hits

%20Rivers&st=cse>.

Walsh, Bryan. "The Gas Dilemma." TIME [New York City] 11 Apr. 2011: 40-48. Print.

"The World's Smallest Microlaser." PhysOrg.com - Science News, Technology, Physics,

Nanotechnology, Space Science, Earth Science, Medicine. PhysOrg.com, 23 Mar. 2010.

Web. 16 Apr. 2011. <http://www.physorg.com/news188593304.html>.

Zeller, Tom. "Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems." The New York

Times. The New York Times, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 16 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/business/energy-environment/12gas.html?

_r=2&scp=2&sq=natural%20gas&st=cse>.