Energy Industry Supporting 3.5 million Jobs by 2035

With the current unemployment rate at a low of 7.9%, who wouldn't be excited to hear that any one industry could potentially support 3.5 million jobs by 2035? In our current economic position, statistics like that sound extremely appealing.

According to API President and CEO Jack Gerard, development of the United States' unconventional oil and gas resources could create 2 million new jobs over the next two decades. The energy industry could potentially be the main component in getting our nation back to where it was economically ten years ago. According to another article on America's Natural Gas Alliance, shale gas alone is expected to add 1 million new jobs not only in the field but also in related industries. This news sounds incredible, and I believe is completely attainable if and only if we continue hydraulic fracturing operations throughout America.

A major part of unconventional oil and gas operations is shale gas drilling. When drilling into shale, very little oil and gas will be produced unless the well is hydraulically fractured, "fracced." To make each of the wells profitable when they begin to produce, they must be fracced.  Knowing this, it is obvious that the industry will only be profitable and create new jobs if these wells are economically profitable once drilled.

What I am trying to get at in this post is that America needs hydraulic fracturing until there is a new technology developed to get the oil and gas out of the shale. If we slow down or discontinue fraccing operations, as a nation, we will not be able to produce nearly as much domestic oil and gas and will continue relying on other countries more and more.

-Aubrey Bagley

What was Going on in Pavillion, Wyoming?

Could you imagine living in a small town where you know something is wrong with your water supply, but unsure to the reason why and how serious of a problem it is?  This is what happened in a town named Pavillion, Wyoming where the individuals of the town had to fight long and hard to get noticed for a case study to be done on the water supply. 

Louis Meeks, an individual of Pavillion, with a jar of contaminated water

Individuals sent in complaints once they realized the water supply had some foul qualities and this sparked an investigation into the quality of the water headed up by the EPA Region 8.  John Hanger, a nationally recognized expert on environment and energy, review the report given by the EPA and claims that the report implies a direct connection to contamination from hydraulic fraccing and natural gas extraction.  The contamination was so great that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR, advised all of the individuals with contaminated water to use other sources of water for cooking and drinking and when an individual is showering to make sure the room is ventilated. 

Signs were posted making it clear that the water should not be used

Shortly after the report was released by the EPA, EnCana Natural Gas began to come out with statements defending their projects.  EnCana was the only natural gas company with extracting projects in Pavillion and claimed that the EPA reports has no evidence that the contamination came from hydraulic fraccing and that the report is only implying the accusation.  EnCana also pointed out that the findings released by the EPA were not reviewed by qualified third party individuals which are important to determining the true cause of the contamination. 

Even though the findings cannot prove that the hydraulic fraccing is the source of the contamination, the EPA is working with EnCana to make sure all of the individuals living in Pavillion, Wyoming have a clean water supply.  Today the town of Pavillion is being considered for the National Priorities List which is a list of waste sites eligible for clean up financed by the federal Superfund program.

-Adam

The Solution to Pollution is Dilution Part II

I realize after reviewing my previous post title "The Solution to Pollution is Dilution," I may have raised more questions than I answered. This purpose of this post now is to clear up some of the confusing statements I made and attempt to go into more detail on the Air Sampling Report I referred to. However, before I go into the details, here is what I am trying to say in one short statement: it has yet to be proven that hydraulic fracturing is the cause of a majority of air pollution.

I started off the previous post with a metaphor about perfume in a bathroom. Once perfume is sprayed too much, the smell will not go away and related this to air pollution. The reason for using this metaphor is because we need to realize that all of this pollution we are causing may not seem like a big deal right now, but fifty or a hundred years down the road, it will be a huge deal if we don't start trying to prevent and take care it.

Figure 1: Current air pollution

In order to be able to be proactive, we need to understand what are the major sources of air pollution. The Northeastern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report is a report that helps us get more facts on these sources. The conclusions of this report show that the natural gas emissions from some well sites and compressor stations was greater than those found during fraccing operations.

Okay, so what does this actually mean? This means that yes, hydraulic fractionation is a source of natural gas emissions in air pollution; however, it is not the sole source, nor is it a major source according to this report. Fraccing is only a tiny step in the process of producing natural gas. The drilling of a well can be done in two weeks including hydraulic fractionation while the life of a well can last over 30 years. Knowing that these well sites can last this long and compressor stations last even longer, puts into perspective the effects of the natural gas emissions from fraccing operations.

If fraccing only lasts a few days and produces less emissions than the well sites and compressor stations that last a few decades, should we focus so much on the fraccing operations or rather the integrity of the well sites and compressor stations? My opinion is that we should focus more on the well sites and compressor stations. We should do what we can to create new technology and standards that help the industry reduce its emissions where reduction will actually show a major difference. From these results, eliminating hydraulic fractionation will not make much of a dent in natural gas emissions causing air pollution.

This is the point I was trying to make in my previous post and hope that I was able to communicate it more effectively the second time around. I welcome and encourage discussion and any questions you may have regarding this post.

-Aubrey Bagley

The Solution to Pollution is Dilution

Ever heard the phrase "the solution to pollution is dilution?" Many of us can think back to a time where we may have thought that phrase to be true; however, in reality, dilution is by no means the solution. Think about this: you're in the bathroom while someone sprays perfume, immediately that smell may overwhelm you, but in a few minutes, it is diluted and is no longer a bother. This is fine except for when someone comes in every few minutes and sprays more perfume. Eventually, the entire bathroom will smell of perfume and dilution will no longer be an option. If we consider this example and relate it to the possibility of air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing or "fraccing", it would be obvious that we need to do something about it.

However, this is only one side of the story. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection did a report titled Northeastern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report on the effects of drilling in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and surrounding states and what air pollution has been shown as a result . In this study, the air was sampled using two different techniques around a drilling site during fraccing operations as well at a few compressor stations and other well sites.

Marcellus Shale Distribution located in Northeastern U.S.A.

The results from this report showed that the natural gas emissions at the drilling site during fraccing operations was less than those found at the compressor stations or other well sites. Because of these results, one can see that fraccing may not be the main cause to natural gas emissions. Rather, this could be blamed on other operations during production of the natural gas.

So instead of worrying so much about the air pollution caused by fraccing, we should be focusing on the pollution from other operations. This poses the question of is it worth the pollution to produce this natural gas, should we choose to shut down this operation or figure out ways to eliminate it? To answer this question, it is important to think about what we use natural gas for and the effects it would cause if we did not have it any longer.

As one of the authors of this blog, I would say the answer should not be to shut down natural gas operations, rather think of ways we can prevent these emissions even more than we already are. We need to start focusing on the industry as a whole rather than only being interested in one aspect of the industry.We need more engineers and other people to help create more efficient ways to capture or prevent this natural gas from escaping so that we can more efficiently and effectively produce natural gas from conventional ways as well as fraccing.

-Aubrey Bagley