Planet Forward Blog

I’ve been reporting on shale gas for four years now. A trip through upstate New York this week reinforced the notion we are still in the early stages of a story that is gaining steam nationally, even as low natural gas prices have, for now, damped the industry push to open New York for shale gas drilling.

I visited the University of Rochester (New York) and Hobart William and Smith (in Geneva, New York) as part of a book tour for the debut of Under the Surface. Academia is a fertile place for ideas, of course, and I encountered plenty of them growing forth in all directions regarding the impact and future of shale as development. In Rochester, I met with professor Karen Berger and her colleagues from the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. In Geneva, I met with Lisa Cleckner, director of the Finger Lakes Institute, and professor Beth Kinne and other faculty atHobart William and Smith. I also met with members of the community who attended my respective talks at each school. This trip gave me a great feel for the complementary relationship between schools and community in cultivating ideas. Here are a few thoughts from my notebook.

On the question of the cumulative impact of shale gas drilling on water quality locally and regionally: Any attempts to quantify that will be fruitless without a lot of field work prior to the industry’s arrival. Much of the stuff that poses concerns about water quality are naturally occurring in the ground, including metals, salts, methane, and radio active isotopes. Fresh water aquifers, lakes, and streams tend to have some of these elements, but they become a problem when drilling creates conduits for non-potable elements to travel from gas baring zones and layers below the aquifer, where they tend to be more concentrated. There is little argument that drilling can agitate ground water conditions. But without a comprehensive and reliable baseline to set a given sample in the context of the broader natural history of a given spot, it’s hard to prove what is caused by industry and what is not. Ideally, communities will be able to chart the chemistry of their water resources with field tests, and by searching historical records to create a data set that serves as a baseline, against which future changes can be measured. But mobilizing the resources to do this is a monumental task. Geneva and the Seneca Lake region is beginning to do this, with the help of the Finger Lakes Institute, by recruiting students and teachers who can contribute to the science through class projects.

Regarding public health: The needs of a given community in the midst of a drilling boom, and the science available to address those needs, do not always match up. This doesn’t just happen. It takes planning and funding. A good example is the EPA investigation of water quality in a gas field in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The EPA is offering residents hundreds of pages of analytical results, but nobody to interpret them. As one researcher told me, “People see a list of compounds and values next to them, and it’s very unsettling. What does it mean?” The results do tell residents that – at the time the samples were collected – the water was deemed potable, with some exceptions. But without a working knowledge of the ever-changing dynamics of the entire water system, the results have limited value in charting long-term changes in the water system that signal health risks over time.

On the geology of the Marcellus in northern Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New York: Public knowledge of the comprehensive geological picture, and various subtleties that may lead to an abundance of methane migration problems in one area but not another, is scarce. Companies spend a lot of money getting a competitive advantage through seismic surveys and other means, and they are not inclined to share that information. The lack of a detailed public understanding and mapping of “thrust faults” in northern Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New York is one example. Thrust faults are breaks in the bedrock where one section overrides the other, allowing a greater chance for interplay between geological zones, which can be aggravated by drlling.

I also met with community members who brought different perspectives to the table. Where the academicians by nature and training are interested in the questions and process – pulling everything apart and looking at it critically — local residents tend to be interested in the answers and affirmation of their concerns and views. Who do we believe in following the conflicting scientific and economic evaluations of the risks and rewards of the industry? How will drilling affect my land, my health, my economic status, or the nature of my community?

In short, this trip brought me to the crossroads of science and politics, which is the very place that policy is born. We hear a lot of talk about science-based decision making. But lets face it. Scientists don’t make policy. Politicians do. You can take heart in this fact if you have faith in our system (which I do). Politicians, while drawing fire from skeptics, do not work blindly. And you can bet they are gauging the mood of voters during an election year. This includes special interests, of course. But special interests are diluted by the intense grass roots influence on the discussion taking place at town halls, city councils, homesteads, and the Ivory Tower.

The drilling industry’s efforts to open New York state to shale gas development, stymied from the get go, is meeting even more resistance over time.

Contrary to public statements earlier this year by New York state governor Andrew Cuomo that suggested permitting for shale gas wells is imminent, there are compelling reasons to believe that it will continue to be on hold for the foreseeable future. Most visible among these is an anti-fracking movement that is growing louder and more organized each year. New York, which sits over one of the richest sections of the Marcellus Shale, has become a national showcase for activists trying to stop an on-shore drilling boom targeting shale gas formations in the northeast.

A current example involves a coordinated effort by a group of high profile artists and performers from the Empire State organizing a rally and concert in Albany on May 15. The event – New Yorkers Against Fracking – features Natalie Merchant, Joan Osborne, Mark Ruffalo, Melissa Leo, and others sure to have inspirational appeal to large, mainstream audiences. Merchant, a fracking critic who performed in Binghamton in March, is a primary organizer of the event. She and a coalition of artists who live throughout the state are collaborating “to raise awareness about the potential environmental and health impacts of fracking,” she said. “We are working to create a concert that will inform as well as inspire.” The group has recruited acts from a mix of genres, ranging from Dan Zane, a popular children’s folk artist, to the jazz trio Medeski, Martin and Wood. The rally will also feature speeches and performances by authors, actors, scholars and politicians.

Activists cite unacceptable risks to health and ecology from high volume hydraulic fracturing, used to stimulate gas well production, which is exempt from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and hazardous waste regulations. The process, known as fracking, injects large volumes of fresh water mixed with chemicals into well bores to fracture bedrock and release gas. Permitting for shale gas development in New York has been on hold since the Marcellus Shale boom began in 2008 as the state revises its policy to account for the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing through a document called the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). Finalizing that document has been an uncertain and contentious process, and the activists have essentially used the state’s public review of the issue as a vehicle to highlight the extent of fracking opposition.

“The bottom line is that until the DEC fulfills the onerous requirements … Governor Cuomo will have an extremely hard time adopting a Final SGEIS that permits shale gas fracking in New York,” said Walter Hang, an activist and protest organizer from Ithaca, New York. Hang sent the assessment today as part of a renewed call to action for activists in an email titled “Hallelujah: No Final Fracking Decision Yet.”

Politicians are a sound gauge of public sentiment, especially during an election year. A true test of the anti-fracking movement will be pending legislation in Albany that could derail any attempt by the DEC to begin permitting shale wells anytime soon. Bills in both houses would extend a moratorium to allow the state Department of Health to conduct its own extensive review of the impact of fracking. The bills are supported, among others, by downstate politicians answering to votes of people who get their water from the Delaware River watershed – which happens to extend over a lucrative pay zone of the Marcellus Shale. The Assembly bill was introduced by Robert Sweeney, of Suffolk County, who is chair of the Assembly’s Environmental Conservation Committee. Supporters in the Senate include Republican Greg Ball, whose district includes parts of Dutchess, Putnam, and Westchester counties, and Toney Avella, a Democrat from Queens.

Shale gas supporters in Albany, meanwhile, have been keeping a relatively low public profile on the issue since prospecting has eased in their districts with the falling price of natural gas. Senator Tom Libous, who represents farmers living over a prospective drilling fairway in Broome County, was once an outspoken champion for the drill-here-drill-now contingent during Gov. David Paterson’s administration. Perhaps owing to the low natural gas prices (coupled with the give-and-take of doing business in Albany under Cuomo) Libous now defers to the DEC’s judgment to determine “if and when” drilling should start.

As Gannett’s Albany reporter Jon Campbell reported today, the regular persistence of protesters active in legislative halls and the executive mansion is hard to miss. The pressure has slowed the state’s review or permitting guidelines “to a crawl” Avella told Campbell. “I absolutely think we are winning this battle.” Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, agreed that protests have had an impact on the process, which he characterized as “unfortunate for the state of New York and the people.”

The grass roots anti-fracking movement, which in four years has matured into a political force to be reckoned with, is certainly a factor in the outcome for the foreseeable future. Thanks to strong push back from the grass roots activists, the Sierra Club – one of the world’s largest mainstream environmental organizations — recently switched its position on natural gas. The group that once supported natural gas development as a clean-burning alternative to coal now opposes it as another carbon polluter. (Sierra Club’s announcement today of its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign was a clear signal from the agency, which has been historically very unclear on its position on fracking.)

Perhaps the biggest influence of all on the future of shale gas development, however, is the low price of natural gas caused by a market glut. Natural gas prices move in cycles. If and when demand again pushes prices up, you can bet you will see renewed political urgency from those representing the industry and people with landholdings who can gain financially from lease agreements. Big money has a way of motivating both politicians and the people who vote for them. When this happens, anti-fracking activists would be well advised to have a feasible plan to push for an energy policy that can economically displace the demand for fossil fuel.

For an upcoming segment on Bloomberg, Planet Forward will be getting a bit gassy.  FlexEnergy is a company that says it has found a new way to turn lots of new methane sources into renewable energy.  Methane is one of the most destructive greenhouse gas, and according to the FlexEnergy video, it is more than 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2!

However we want to ask you, our community of experts, is generation of renewable energy from such low amounts of methane even possible? And if it is possible, will this technology turn methane into a primary source of clean energy in our future?

Methane can be produced in a variety of ways—the biggest contributor as well as the one that we’re all familiar with, is from cows.  In addition to cows, methane is emitted from human-influenced sources such as landfills, agricultural activities, coal mining, wastewater treatment, etc… the list goes on and on.  Flexenergy is focusing their business on the methane that is the primary constituent of natural gas.  While using methane to make fuel is not new, the Flex Powerstation aims to produce electricity from low-grade sources, even as low as 5% methane.

This change — the ability to use low-density methane — means it can be used in any application that produces methane such as older landfills, wastewater treatment plants, oil fields, coalmines and dairy digesters. Flex says the technology produces Near Zero Emissions
, operates on gases down to 50 Btu/scf (1700 kJ/m3), and has an internal cogeneration system available while also maintaining a small footprint. Such a system, if it can operate as Flex says it can, would offer a number of operations that produce or use methane with a clean and efficient way to turn it into continuous energy.

We at Planet Forward want to know what you have to say about turning methane into a valuable fuel.  One of the main topics discussed during the Renewable Energy Panel at Planet Forward’s Innovation Summit was whether or not renewable energy sources will produce enough power to fuel our future.  This discussion also lead to a heated debate on natural gas.  Do you think methane will produce large enough quantities of power to become an effective solution to our energy problems? Will methane even be able to hold a flame to our other renewable energy sources that have already been proven effective? Tell us what you think!