Horizontal Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Formation Safe for Groundwater
By Jim Willis on Oct 7, 2008 in Environment, Marcellus Shale | Printable Version
A quick update on the Marcellus Shale Formation drilling proposed for our area. Yesterday the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a preliminary finding with respect to permits being filed to drill for natural gas in the state. You can read it here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/47554.html.
You may recall earlier posts I’ve made about local farmers and other landowners suddenly becoming millionaires by selling drilling rights to energy companies for the natural gas that sits under their land. The Marcellus Shale Formation, as it’s called, is an underground region stretching across a number of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, including much of New York. In particular, it is thought that Broome and surrounding counties sit over top some of the richest deposits of natural gas known to exist in the United States!
But there are concerns about the process to drill and extract the gas. In particular, people are concerned about groundwater contamination. It takes up to 2 million gallons of water to drill a single well. The kind of drilling they do is called frac’ing, short for fracturing. Drillers force water under pressure along with chemicals like hydrochloric acid down into the ground vertically, and then horizontally for many hundreds (even thousands) of feet. It splits the rock apart to release natural gas.
The problem is, you have to be sure where you take the water from (local lakes, rivers, wells) doesn’t deplete the water supply, and then the water you pump into the ground must come out and must carefully be handled and disposed of because it contains heavy metals from the rock along with leftover chemicals that were used. In the process of pumping all that water (and chemicals) into the ground, and then pulling it out again, you want to be sure you don’t contaminate groundwater supplies. It is a legitimate concern.
The DEC is creating a generic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that all drillers must use for each permit filed–for each well that is drilled. A generic “everyone uses the same one” EIS means drillers don’t have to incur the extreme time and expense of performing a study for each and every drill site. Yesterday’s “Draft Scope” issued by the DEC is the first step along the way in preparing the requirements everyone must use. I’ve read some of the 45-page document. On page 10, I found a discussion of groundwater contamination. I found it very enlightening. This is an excerpt:
Department regulations presently require, and will continue to require, that freshwater aquifers be sealed behind cemented steel pipe before a well is drilled to the depth where hydraulic fracturing will occur, which is typically thousands of feet below the aquifers. Therefore, the injected fluid does not come into contact with groundwater; it is, in fact, injected into and recovered through a wellbore that has been specifically constructed to safely convey hydrocarbons under pressure to the surface without negatively impacting fresh water aquifers. The Department has no record of any documented instance of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing for gas well development in New York, despite the use of this technology in thousands of wells across the state during the past 50 or more years. Division of Mineral Resources staff responsible for permitting and oversight of gas well drilling since 1980 also do not recall any such instance. (Emphasis mine)
Did you catch that? In more than 50 years of this type of drilling used in New York State, there has never been a single instance of groundwater being contaminated. Yes, we must be vigilant with regard to disposing of the waste water. But when done right, horizontal drilling, or frac’ing, is safe.
Let’s hope the DEC finishes its review and issues the generic EIS on time early next year, and let’s hope we get drilling quickly so we can finally get on the road to energy independence.
Technorati Tags: Marcellus Shale Formation, natural gas drilling, groundwater contamination, horizontal drilling, New York State, Broome County
James Barth | Oct 7, 2008 | Reply
Several points of correction need to be made regarding Jim Wallis’ article. The most important is to state that horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing for natural gas using toxic chemicals (surfactants, lubricants, biocides etc.) is not safe, period. There are hundreds of examples of pollution of water sources that have occurred in Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming just to name a few, either as a result of drilling or storing/trucking the chemicals and the toxic “produced water” (the term for the recovered toxic and carcinogenic waste). Contrary to the statements made by NYS DEC Commissioner Alexander Grannis when he appeared before the NYC Council Committee on Environmental Protection, these are not “anecdotal” examples to be ignored.
A second point is that by all best estimates such drilling uses between three and five million gallons of fresh water per well and fracking, not two; and the well may be fracked multiple times. Third, only about seventy percent of the produced water is recovered, leaving thirty percent per fracking undergound.
Fourth, the natural gas and toxic produced water may in time work its way upward to the aquifers through fissures in layers of rock and permeable soils. There are numerous examples of the gas, once freed, migrating to the surface to pollute water and soil and pose a threat to households.
A very important fifth correction concerns the wildly misleading statement that this drilling has been around for fifty years. The technology using these types of chemicals in horizontally drilled wells, to my research, has only been available since the mid nineties, and on September 10, 2008 at City Hall in NYC, Commissioner Grannis testified (according to my ears) that the DEC had a THREE YEAR history with this type of drilling, and to the best of my knowledge, they have been mostly vertical wells, not horizontal. Since the DEC has virtually no inspection staff and has performed no study, what does it know? Is three years enough to base anything on?
Our drinking water is our life and our health, and once poisoned, there is precious little we can do. The onus is on the NYS DEC, the Pa DEP and the River Commissions to prevent pollution, not to try to regulate it. It should be a proven fact that horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing with toxic chemicals will not pollute our water. If it is benign, why did the oil and gas industry need to be given major exemptions from the Federal Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, Clean Air and Right to Know Acts?
Somebody give me a good answer to that please.
James Barth
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Inc.
Jim Willis | Oct 7, 2008 | Reply
James, first of all, thank you for taking the time to comment. And thank you for making some excellent points in your remarks. Blogs, by their nature, are about a friendly give and take. About people airing opinions. And I gladly accept all opinions–even those that may disagree with my own–provided they are respectful (which yours are). So thanks!
Let me agree with you 100% on your point that, “Our drinking water is our life and our health, and once poisoned, there is precious little we can do.” I seriously doubt anyone will argue against common sense.
The thing that caught my eye in the Draft Scope from the DEC was the comment about 50 years of hydraulic fracturing used in this state with no contamination. I did quote it accurately–that indeed is what the DEC has said. And I believe what you’re saying is they are in error–such types of drilling have not been around for 50 years. Point taken–you may be right. Let’s assume you are right for the sake of argument.
The logic I use in this situation goes like this: I don’t want my family nor my neighbors to have contaminated water. Nobody wants that. But, we do have the opportunity to use homegrown energy and start to work away from dependence on foreign oil. That’s a good thing. The energy is there–in the form of natural gas. And there’s lots of it. We need it. Conservation like lowering the thermostat and installing energy saving devices only goes so far. The brutal truth we all must agree on is that we need more energy, and more sources of energy, than we have now.
The next line in my thinking goes like this: This type of drilling is happening across the U.S. in thousands of other places. I’m sure there are some cases of unscrupulous drillers, accidents, and so on. But if this type of drilling were fundamentally unsafe and unhealthy, and if it almost always resulted in pollution and contamination of the environment–in particular the groundwater–no amount of publicity and money could buy people’s silence. Not in this information age. It would become known and people would oppose it en masse.
Finally, with groups like yours and others around to sound the alarm and keep an eye on things (a counterbalance), I believe we can safely drill, in our area. Fear of “maybe this will happen” and “over there that has happened” should not keep us from exploring and using an abundant natural resource.
Safeguards? Sure thing. Controls on how the water is shipped, and how much gets used from local sources? You bet. Saying “forget it, it’s too risky”–no way! It’s too risky NOT to carefully, deliberatively, wisely go after the natural gas sitting under us right now.
Feel free to correct my logic.
Jim Willis
P.S. One small correction in your correction: The last name is Willis, not Wallis.
Brent Beckley | Oct 7, 2008 | Reply
James & Jim:
I agree that we must ensure the proper protection of our resources, especially those critical to life. However, there is also a point to be made on taking too many precautions. Every human process carries a risk, and regulations in the past (Clean Water, Clean Air, etc.), although effective and necessary in their original forms, have become excessively burdened by constant updating due to political pressure (not necessarily based on science). Let me give a quick example…as technology has improved in regards to “sensing” chemical traces in water, so has the desire to put further restrictions on those chemicals. There are regulations that are concerned with “parts per trillion” which is an astronomically small number and in almost every case, useless. There is no way to possibly account for every trace chemical and still conduct any operation. Yet, the laws go this far and when someone has to ask for an exemption, there doesn’t seem to be anyone asking…”was the regulation important in the first place, or was it unnecessary?”
I believe that our motto of “do absolutely no harm to anything, ever” is unattainable. There are already huge restrictions on the shipping of chemicals, and yet there are still going to be accidents. Does it mean we stop shipping altogether? There are already restrictions in place to prevent industrial accidents, in fact there are several publishers and service organizations which are highly profitable in enhancing the current knowledge base. But, industrial accidents still happen every day. Does it mean we stop producing goods?
I agree with James in that we must be very careful. I also agree with Jim in that we must continue to forge ahead.
There is a middle ground. We all need to meet there instead of taking a position far to one side or the other. This is not to say this discussion has been in any way combative. It’s actually very refreshing to read and I hope it can continue.
Jim Willis | Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Well said Brent, as always! I believe you’ve nailed it. There is a middle ground here and that’s where we must meet–balancing the need for energy with protecting the citizenry. I believe it can, and must, be achieved. Hope you’re doing well.
Brent Beckley | Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Glad to see you back in business, Jim. You keep on keeping on. Lovin it all.