Fracking for oil and natural gas will make America strong as it will reduce or eliminate the United States exporting hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil, Greatly reduce the price of oil making everything cheaper and the entire economy will grow. The military will have all of the cheap fuel it needs. We have what we need to return to greatness.
Self-sufficiency means greater security
Only the Democratic Party doesn't what that.
EPH
EPH
Weapons Might Not Be Our Ultimate Military Advantage
Seventy-one years ago this month, the Nazi army began its attack on Stalingrad. After more than six long months of grueling warfare that left the city in shambles and claimed the lives of more than 1.5 million people, the Soviet Army turned back the Nazis and swung the fate of the Second World War. But why did these armies continue to fight with such zealous fervor after the city was nothing but a pile of rubble and its strategic assets were in shambles?
Oil.
Stalingrad was the last piece standing between the Nazi army and the oil-rich Caspian sea. Had Hitler's army secured this region, it's very likely history would be completely different from what we know it today. This is but one of several examples of how energy influences war, both the reasons we fight them and how they are won.
Today, the United States Department of Defense consumes about 5 billion gallons of oil per year and spent a total of $20 billion on energy last year alone. Not only has the use of traditional fuel sources (oil, diesel) grown more expensive, but our nation's reliance on foreign oil sources adds an unnecessary element of exposure for our nation's defenders. To combat this strategic weakness, our military has put a great emphasis on renewable energy use, and it's starting to pay off.
Self-sufficiency means greater security
The majority of the Department of Defense's energy budget isn't appropriated to run new Iron-Man type body armor suits or death rays, but to simply keeping the lights on at military bases. Not only does relying on traditional energy sources eat into costs, but it also puts the military at a strategic disadvantage as it relies on civilian transmission lines, which have shown to be undependable.
Source: Nellis Air Force Base.
For this reason, the Department of Defense is looking into ways to
take bases off the grid, and one of the most economical ways to do that
today is through solar power. The Department of Defense has committed to
3,000 megawatts of solar power for its military bases. And companies
are lining up to be of service. A major player in that effort is SolarCity (NASDAQ: SCTY )
. Through its SolarStrong partnership with the DoD, the company will be
supplying 10% of that commitment with solar installations for military
housing. The entire project will be able to supply 120,000 military
households with off-the-grid solar power that can also be used
throughout the base.While this is a major advantage at home, it is even more critical in the field. In 2010, the U.S. was shipping as much as 40 million gallons of diesel fuel a month in Afghanistan, and it cost lives. An Army review of the Iraqi conflict noted that one of every eight casualties in Iraq resulted from protecting fuel convoys delivering diesel for generators at forward operating bases. Through small, portable solar generators, the military is able to reduce diesel consumption at these facilities by more than 90%. According to the Office of Naval Research, alternative power solutions in the field result in fewer shipments, fewer casualties, and fewer fuel costs.
Achieving lift-off with biofuels
In fiscal year 2011, the United States Air Force spent $8.3 billion on jet fuel. This is far and away the largest energy cost for the Air Force today, representing 85.5% of the entire energy budget. Again, not only is this a cost problem, but a large amount of U.S. oil is still sourced from outside the United States. To help alleviate this issue, the Air Force is hoping that biofuels can provide a possible solution. One distinct advantage that using biofuels has is that they could be produced on-site, which could potentially cut costs as well as enhance supply-chain security.
So far, the military is getting a bit of flak for these projects. In its most recent dealing with Solazyme (NASDAQ: SZYM ) , which is looking to create an algal-based jet fuel, the price tag came out to about $26 a gallon. I agree that buying fuel at those types of costs is completely unsustainable, considering current jet fuel prices are around $3 a gallon. At the same time, this was a test batch of fuel produced in a small lab to see if it could be used in jet engines. As technology and manufacturing processes improve, these prices will come down and could potentially fall within a competitive pricing range of petroleum-based jet fuels while also providing a domestic, secure source that isn't exposed to the global fuel market.
What a Fool believes
The incorporation of alternative energy solutions is not only a way that our military can save money, but it also provides a level of security that can't be guaranteed with the use of traditional oil. Not all of the technology has been completely proven, and it may take a couple of years before the new alternatives sit at the price levels of fossil-fuel options, but backing from the military will certainly help it get there.
Having the military move away from oil not only makes us more
secure, but it's also a step in the right direction to make America more
competitive on the global market. Energy isn't our only problem,
though. Warren Buffet has gone on record saying that this marco trend is
"the tapeworm that's eating at American competitiveness." Find out what
he was talking about in our special report: "What's Really Eating at America's Competitiveness." You'll also discover an idea to profit as companies work to eradicate this efficiency-sucking tapeworm. Just click here for a free copy of this valuable report.
An army of ... renewables?
You might be inclined to think that "going green" is just good politics for the military, and that these moves don't amount to anything substantive. But let's look at the numbers:
Let's look at how this is playing out across the branches of service.
Coast Guard
The mission of the Coast Guard's Office of Energy Management is "to foster the supply of energy commodities and the execution of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and projects in a sustainable, reliable, and accountable fashion." The Coast Guard doesn't publish a ton of details about its initiatives, but it is explicit about increasing its consumption of renewables as part of its energy management strategy.
Air Force
The Air Force's Net Zero Plan aims for the service "to consume no more energy than is generated," using a suite of strategies that include efficiency initiatives and increased use of renewables. Its One Gigawatt Plan will develop 1 GW of renewable energy on Air Force installations by 2016. Much of that amount will be achieved through Power Purchase Agreements, or PPAs. Remember that term, because it's kind of magical and we'll come back to it shortly.
Marine Corps
Innovation is the name of the game here. The Marine Corps is developing hybrid systems that combine solar generation with legacy, jet fuel-powered generators. These systems augment traditional generators with solar photovoltaic panels, battery storage, and smart controls, dramatically improving their efficiency. These systems are the next generation of technologies that the Marine Corps has already deployed successfully. Indeed, two of its patrol bases in Afghanistan operated entirely on solar power in the summer of 2010.
Navy
The Navy already derives 12% of its current electricity consumption from renewable sources. It calls its approach to further renewable development "Watch-Partner-Lead." In essence, the Navy keeps an eye on developments in relevant technologies, partners with appropriate entities to promote further technological advancement, and leads "the development of mission-critical technology." One of its significant initiatives is the development of a Great Green Fleet, a Carrier Strike Group of ships powered by alternative fuel sources. Back on land, the Navy aims to produce at least half of the energy for its installations from renewable sources by 2020.
Army
The Army made a huge splash a few months ago, when it awarded an unprecedented $7 billion in contracts to produce geothermal power for Army installations. Among the lucky awardees are Constellation NewEnergy, a unit of Exelon (NYSE: EXC ) , and Siemens Government Technology, a unit of Siemens (NYSE: SI ) . Like the Air Force, the Army will use PPAs as its vehicle. Importantly, this is just the beginning of the Army's spending spree. According to an Army press release, "Announcement of awards for the remaining technologies, solar, wind and biomass, are anticipated for staggered release through the end of calendar year 2013."
Power Purchase Agreements
The military branches are conducting much of their renewables development for installations through PPAs. That means they aren't going to own generation facilities -- rather, developers will use private financing to build out renewable generation facilities, secure in the steady stream of future revenue that PPAs provide. With this reliable cash flow, companies such as Exelon and Siemens can place safe bets on further development and R&D in the renewables space. This process will create a virtuous cycle, where renewables in general continue to become more efficient and less expensive, further improving their competitiveness in our energy landscape.
This trend is significant enough to be a game-changer. The military, with its colossal resources and voracious energy appetite, is in the position to set agendas. In its quest to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources, the military has the potential to move renewable power from the fringe to the core of our energy landscape.
Which branch of the military is leading the pack? Honestly, they're all doing so much that I can only call a bigger winner: America. Heck, yeah.
In my special tomorrow, titled "Myths, Lies and Complete Stupidity" I argue that it is myth to say that fracking, used to get natural gas out of the ground, is unacceptably dangerous.
Fracking is indeed dangerous. But so is coal mining, oil drilling, nuclear waste, building windmills and solar collectors, and shipping windmills and solar collectors. All energy production poses dangers. Life involves trade-offs. The tradeoffs for natural gas are well worth it. Fracking allows Americans to save money on home heating bills. It's lowered the price of natural gas so much that manufacturing that left America is coming back. It may make America energy independent. For those concerned about global warming, burning gas instead of oil and coal helps reduce CO2 emissions.
So I was puzzled that some serious people, like Paul Gallay of Riverkeeper, want fracking stopped. When I interviewed him, he made what sounds like a compelling case.
Gallay cites a study that claims that fracking makes it more likely that you'll have gas (methane) in your tap water. But that study only examined 60 wells. A more recent study looked at 1,700 wells in the same area and found no relation between being close to natural gas drilling and having methane in your water.
Gallay sent us a study by Cornell ecology professor Robert Howarth that says fracking does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions because methane is an unusually powerful greenhouse gas. But an MIT study found that Howarth's estimates of the emissions from fracking are 7 to 30 times too large. A study by Cornell scientist Lawrence Cathles also criticizes Howarth's assumptions. (If you want more details, Howarth responded to the critics. Then Cathles responded to the response.)
Fracking opponents also cite accidents like this one: "Frack Fluid Spill in Dimock Contaminates Stream, Killing Fish." An MIT report counted up more cases.
But put that in perspective. There are at least 35,000 active hydraulic fracturing wells in the US. In other words, MIT found about one alleged problem for every 1,000 wells. Mistakes happen; one-per- thousand is about as error-free as energy production gets.
Technology will also make fracking even safer: Scientists recently invented a fracking fluid that is so safe, you can drink it.
One claim, famously made by the movie Gasland, is that your tap water might catch on fire if you live near a fracking site. Methane is flammable after all, and the film features a man in Colorado whose tap water bursts into flame. So state environmental officials looked in the man's case, and determined that the flammable water was not due to fracking - it was there naturally. That happens often. In my special on Sunday, I show clips of burning water in all sorts of places-places far from any fracking. It's a big country. Lots of weird stuff happens.
The bottom line is it that fracking brings good things: cheaper energy, jobs, and cleaner air. Even President Obama says that "the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power."
Still, the usual alarmists have already stopped fracking in New York State, Maryland, and Vermont. This won't help the environment. Or poor people.
Fracking does pose risks, but they can be safely managed.
Not Just Cleaner: Fracking A Good Energy Return On Investment Also
Natural gas is much cleaner than coal but it's also important that
its energy return on investment (EROI) - the total input energy with
the energy expected to be made available to end users - is similar to
coal, according to a paper in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.
The paper looked at gas from horizontal, hydraulically fractured wells in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania and their analysis indicates that the EROI ratio of a typical well is likely between 64:1 and 112:1, with a mean of approximately 85:1. This range assumes an estimated ultimate recovery of 3.0 billion cubic feet per well, similar to the estimated ultimate recovery of coal, which falls between 50:1 and 85:1.
Environmentally, natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. It produces much lower quantities of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide - half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides - than burning coal or oil for energy does. "Our analysis indicates that gas can be extracted from shale efficiently, from an energy perspective. The energy return on (energy) investment ratio (EROI) does seem to be at least as favorable as coal," said lead author Mike Aucott. "However, a comparison with coal is difficult. There appear to be large amounts of coal still available. Estimates of the amount of gas available from the shale plays vary widely. It is not clear yet whether there is anywhere near enough to rival coal over the long haul."
"There are concerns about water pollution and other environmental impacts associated with shale gas production. With the assumption that these can be managed, and that production quantities remain consistent with initial production data, the favorable EROI suggests that shale gas will be a viable energy source for quite some time."
Citation: Michael L. Aucott and Jacqueline M. Melillo, 'A Preliminary Energy Return on Investment Analysis of Natural Gas from the Marcellus Shale', Journal of Industrial Ecology Article first published online: 17 JUN 2013 DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12040
Deroy Murdock
Which Branch of the Military Uses More Green Energy?
There's a competition going on among the branches of the U.S. military, and I'm not talking about Army-Navy football. No, the services are working hard to position themselves as green. That's right, green, as in environmentally friendly. This is a trend that's only going to intensify going forward. Considering that the U.S. military is the world's largest fossil-fuel consumer, this is going to matter.
An army of ... renewables?
You might be inclined to think that "going green" is just good politics for the military, and that these moves don't amount to anything substantive. But let's look at the numbers:
- $7 billion. That's how much the Army alone is plowing into renewables.
- Or how about 3 gigawatts? That's how much generation the military as a whole expects from renewable sources by 2025, in keeping with a commitment President Obama made last year.
Let's look at how this is playing out across the branches of service.
Coast Guard
The mission of the Coast Guard's Office of Energy Management is "to foster the supply of energy commodities and the execution of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and projects in a sustainable, reliable, and accountable fashion." The Coast Guard doesn't publish a ton of details about its initiatives, but it is explicit about increasing its consumption of renewables as part of its energy management strategy.
Air Force
The Air Force's Net Zero Plan aims for the service "to consume no more energy than is generated," using a suite of strategies that include efficiency initiatives and increased use of renewables. Its One Gigawatt Plan will develop 1 GW of renewable energy on Air Force installations by 2016. Much of that amount will be achieved through Power Purchase Agreements, or PPAs. Remember that term, because it's kind of magical and we'll come back to it shortly.
Marine Corps
Innovation is the name of the game here. The Marine Corps is developing hybrid systems that combine solar generation with legacy, jet fuel-powered generators. These systems augment traditional generators with solar photovoltaic panels, battery storage, and smart controls, dramatically improving their efficiency. These systems are the next generation of technologies that the Marine Corps has already deployed successfully. Indeed, two of its patrol bases in Afghanistan operated entirely on solar power in the summer of 2010.
Navy
The Navy already derives 12% of its current electricity consumption from renewable sources. It calls its approach to further renewable development "Watch-Partner-Lead." In essence, the Navy keeps an eye on developments in relevant technologies, partners with appropriate entities to promote further technological advancement, and leads "the development of mission-critical technology." One of its significant initiatives is the development of a Great Green Fleet, a Carrier Strike Group of ships powered by alternative fuel sources. Back on land, the Navy aims to produce at least half of the energy for its installations from renewable sources by 2020.
Army
The Army made a huge splash a few months ago, when it awarded an unprecedented $7 billion in contracts to produce geothermal power for Army installations. Among the lucky awardees are Constellation NewEnergy, a unit of Exelon (NYSE: EXC ) , and Siemens Government Technology, a unit of Siemens (NYSE: SI ) . Like the Air Force, the Army will use PPAs as its vehicle. Importantly, this is just the beginning of the Army's spending spree. According to an Army press release, "Announcement of awards for the remaining technologies, solar, wind and biomass, are anticipated for staggered release through the end of calendar year 2013."
Power Purchase Agreements
The military branches are conducting much of their renewables development for installations through PPAs. That means they aren't going to own generation facilities -- rather, developers will use private financing to build out renewable generation facilities, secure in the steady stream of future revenue that PPAs provide. With this reliable cash flow, companies such as Exelon and Siemens can place safe bets on further development and R&D in the renewables space. This process will create a virtuous cycle, where renewables in general continue to become more efficient and less expensive, further improving their competitiveness in our energy landscape.
This trend is significant enough to be a game-changer. The military, with its colossal resources and voracious energy appetite, is in the position to set agendas. In its quest to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources, the military has the potential to move renewable power from the fringe to the core of our energy landscape.
Which branch of the military is leading the pack? Honestly, they're all doing so much that I can only call a bigger winner: America. Heck, yeah.
The military isn't the only player out there that recognizes the
need for a reworking of our energy landscape. Forward-thinking energy
players such as General Electric and Ford have already plowed sizable amounts of research capital into this little-known stock,
because they know it holds the key to the explosive profit power of the
coming "no choice fuel revolution." Luckily, there's still time for you
to get on board if you act quickly. All the details are inside an
exclusive report from The Motley Fool. Click here for the full story!
Fracking is Wonderful
In my special tomorrow, titled "Myths, Lies and Complete Stupidity" I argue that it is myth to say that fracking, used to get natural gas out of the ground, is unacceptably dangerous.
Fracking is indeed dangerous. But so is coal mining, oil drilling, nuclear waste, building windmills and solar collectors, and shipping windmills and solar collectors. All energy production poses dangers. Life involves trade-offs. The tradeoffs for natural gas are well worth it. Fracking allows Americans to save money on home heating bills. It's lowered the price of natural gas so much that manufacturing that left America is coming back. It may make America energy independent. For those concerned about global warming, burning gas instead of oil and coal helps reduce CO2 emissions.
So I was puzzled that some serious people, like Paul Gallay of Riverkeeper, want fracking stopped. When I interviewed him, he made what sounds like a compelling case.
Gallay cites a study that claims that fracking makes it more likely that you'll have gas (methane) in your tap water. But that study only examined 60 wells. A more recent study looked at 1,700 wells in the same area and found no relation between being close to natural gas drilling and having methane in your water.
Gallay sent us a study by Cornell ecology professor Robert Howarth that says fracking does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions because methane is an unusually powerful greenhouse gas. But an MIT study found that Howarth's estimates of the emissions from fracking are 7 to 30 times too large. A study by Cornell scientist Lawrence Cathles also criticizes Howarth's assumptions. (If you want more details, Howarth responded to the critics. Then Cathles responded to the response.)
Fracking opponents also cite accidents like this one: "Frack Fluid Spill in Dimock Contaminates Stream, Killing Fish." An MIT report counted up more cases.
But put that in perspective. There are at least 35,000 active hydraulic fracturing wells in the US. In other words, MIT found about one alleged problem for every 1,000 wells. Mistakes happen; one-per- thousand is about as error-free as energy production gets.
Technology will also make fracking even safer: Scientists recently invented a fracking fluid that is so safe, you can drink it.
One claim, famously made by the movie Gasland, is that your tap water might catch on fire if you live near a fracking site. Methane is flammable after all, and the film features a man in Colorado whose tap water bursts into flame. So state environmental officials looked in the man's case, and determined that the flammable water was not due to fracking - it was there naturally. That happens often. In my special on Sunday, I show clips of burning water in all sorts of places-places far from any fracking. It's a big country. Lots of weird stuff happens.
The bottom line is it that fracking brings good things: cheaper energy, jobs, and cleaner air. Even President Obama says that "the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power."
Still, the usual alarmists have already stopped fracking in New York State, Maryland, and Vermont. This won't help the environment. Or poor people.
Fracking does pose risks, but they can be safely managed.
Not Just Cleaner: Fracking A Good Energy Return On Investment Also
By News Staff | June 17th 2013 10:31 AM |
The paper looked at gas from horizontal, hydraulically fractured wells in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania and their analysis indicates that the EROI ratio of a typical well is likely between 64:1 and 112:1, with a mean of approximately 85:1. This range assumes an estimated ultimate recovery of 3.0 billion cubic feet per well, similar to the estimated ultimate recovery of coal, which falls between 50:1 and 85:1.
Environmentally, natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. It produces much lower quantities of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide - half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides - than burning coal or oil for energy does. "Our analysis indicates that gas can be extracted from shale efficiently, from an energy perspective. The energy return on (energy) investment ratio (EROI) does seem to be at least as favorable as coal," said lead author Mike Aucott. "However, a comparison with coal is difficult. There appear to be large amounts of coal still available. Estimates of the amount of gas available from the shale plays vary widely. It is not clear yet whether there is anywhere near enough to rival coal over the long haul."
"There are concerns about water pollution and other environmental impacts associated with shale gas production. With the assumption that these can be managed, and that production quantities remain consistent with initial production data, the favorable EROI suggests that shale gas will be a viable energy source for quite some time."
Citation: Michael L. Aucott and Jacqueline M. Melillo, 'A Preliminary Energy Return on Investment Analysis of Natural Gas from the Marcellus Shale', Journal of Industrial Ecology Article first published online: 17 JUN 2013 DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12040
Why fracking is good for America
Jul. 15, 2013
Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor, a nationally
syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, and a media
fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at
Stanford University.
Written by Deroy Murdock
WILLIAMSPORT, Pennsylvania — The only thing deeper than a natural-gas well is the ignorance of the anti-fracking crowd.
Fracking — formally called hydraulic fracturing — involves briefly pumping water, sand and chemicals into shale formations far below Earth’s surface and the aquifers that irrigate crops and quench human thirst. This process cracks these rocks and liberates the gas within. Though employed for decades with seemingly no verified contamination of ground water, anti-fracking activists behave as if this technology were invented specifically to poison Americans.
“Fracking makes all water dirty,” declares a poster that Yoko Ono recently exhibited at a Manhattan carpet store. According to another: “Pretty soon there will be no more water to drink.”
Matt Damon’s 2012 film Promised Land dramatizes fracking’s supposed dangers by showing a toy farm devoured by flames.
In contrast to this hyperventilation, former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told the House Government Reform Committee in May 2011: “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”
Frackophobes would be astonished to see how much Anadarko, America’s third largest natural gas producer, obsesses over the environment in its Marcellus Shale operations. Anadarko and the American Petroleum Institute discussed these practices during a late-June fact-finding tour they hosted for journalists here.
Before drilling, Anadarko identifies flora and fauna near production sites. In Pennsylvania, it uses outdoor cameras to determine which animals traverse the area. This helps Anadarko work with landowners to restore their property, post-production, or enhance it with vegetation that will attract desired species.
A large pond on a small hill belonging to the Elbow Fish and Game Club temporarily holds production-related water for an adjacent development site. After 50 to 100 days of drilling and well construction, and two to five days of fracking, about six to 12 wells quietly will begin to collect natural gas from this field. At that point, the soil excavated for the pond will be removed from storage and returned from whence it came. Anadarko will plant local grasses and flowers, and the place will look largely untouched as the wells yield gas for 20 to 40 years.
Fracking — formally called hydraulic fracturing — involves briefly pumping water, sand and chemicals into shale formations far below Earth’s surface and the aquifers that irrigate crops and quench human thirst. This process cracks these rocks and liberates the gas within. Though employed for decades with seemingly no verified contamination of ground water, anti-fracking activists behave as if this technology were invented specifically to poison Americans.
“Fracking makes all water dirty,” declares a poster that Yoko Ono recently exhibited at a Manhattan carpet store. According to another: “Pretty soon there will be no more water to drink.”
Matt Damon’s 2012 film Promised Land dramatizes fracking’s supposed dangers by showing a toy farm devoured by flames.
In contrast to this hyperventilation, former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told the House Government Reform Committee in May 2011: “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”
Frackophobes would be astonished to see how much Anadarko, America’s third largest natural gas producer, obsesses over the environment in its Marcellus Shale operations. Anadarko and the American Petroleum Institute discussed these practices during a late-June fact-finding tour they hosted for journalists here.
Before drilling, Anadarko identifies flora and fauna near production sites. In Pennsylvania, it uses outdoor cameras to determine which animals traverse the area. This helps Anadarko work with landowners to restore their property, post-production, or enhance it with vegetation that will attract desired species.
A large pond on a small hill belonging to the Elbow Fish and Game Club temporarily holds production-related water for an adjacent development site. After 50 to 100 days of drilling and well construction, and two to five days of fracking, about six to 12 wells quietly will begin to collect natural gas from this field. At that point, the soil excavated for the pond will be removed from storage and returned from whence it came. Anadarko will plant local grasses and flowers, and the place will look largely untouched as the wells yield gas for 20 to 40 years.
A few minutes away by car, several wells are being fracked on acreage owned by a farmer named Landon. A thick felt and rubber pad, surrounded by a large berm, prevents potential spills from contaminating Landon’s soil.
“We collect rainwater that falls on the pad,” says a production worker named, fittingly, Anthony Waters. “It’s pumped down the well, not put onto land.”
Fracking the Marcellus Shale happens some 6,000 feet underground. That is about 5,000 feet below groundwater supplies. Drills and pipes penetrate aquifers, but they are encased in multiple layers of steel and concrete designed to separate drinking water from fracking fluids (which are 99 percent water and sand and only 1 percent chemicals).
An old-fashioned well was like a vertical straw that sucked up gas just from the bottom tip. Horizontal wells start from one small spot at the surface and then fan out far underground. They then draw in gas as if through small holes in vacuum hoses laid flat on the floor. Multiple wells drilled through a limited space on the surface lightens impact on land and habitat, as well as truck traffic.
Rather than peddle ill-informed nonsense about fracking, Yoko Ono and company should learn what Anadarko is doing and encourage other producers to adopt its standards as best practices. And if another company is cleaner and safer, challenge Anadarko and its competitors to learn that producer’s lessons.
Unlike Pennsylvania, New York State is sitting on its adjacent portion of the Marcellus Shale and studying its collective navel. The Empire State and the rest of the U.S. should harness fracking’s surprisingly clean technology and develop this country’s bountiful natural gas reserves.
What’s not to like? This fuel is all-American, and the profits stay here — not in the hands of people who want to kill us.
No comments:
Post a Comment