Marcellus Debate HIghlights American Scientific Ignorance

We've been hearing about it for years -- that when it comes to understanding math and science related concepts, other countries are worlds ahead of the United States. For anyone who has doubted the validity of that comment, I give you the ongoing debate on the Marcellus Shale.

Everyone knows by now that the Marcellus is a deep geologic formation rich in natural gas. Geologists and general science people among us say it contains enough natural gas to significantly decrease our dependence on foreign fuel sources. Natural gas, if used in place of other fossil fuels at power generation facilities, could cut green house gas emissions as much as 50 percent at some plants. It could also go a long way in limiting GHG emissions related to transportation.

Like every energy source out there, natural gas has its issues. Extracting it is complicated -- it takes a great deal of geological planning, as well as a major construction process to tap into it. In fact, it takes about six months to a year of many people's time to get from the planning stage to the actual day of drilling. Major construction does mean truck traffic, dust, noise, and inconvenience -- a lot like summertime road construction jobs. It also means those out there doing the work need to be vigilant and conscious of their impact.

Healthy debate, questions and concern should be expected. Yet strangely, many, including some who we would deem "well educated," continue to raise scientific myth and inaccuracy, either to scare their neighbors about something that really isn't all that scary, or because they really don't understand simple earth science.

Just this week, I was "talking" with one of my favorite Twitterers about the fact that natural gas (methane) itself is not considered toxic to humans. So for instance, in the much-discussed town of Dimock, PA, where failed casing lead to natural gas in some of the towns water wells, drinking it prior to its being vented, might have tasted bad, and caused slight stomach discomfort, but no lasting effects. This non-toxicity is documented, but my friend doesn't believe me. Instead, she came at me with an argument that burning natural gas causes radon build up in homes and will kill people. I've lived in radon country my whole life -- this is the first I've ever heard this. (The CDC does note it on its Web site, but the impact must be so small that its rarely if ever discussed.)

At this point, I've heard so many stories that take advantage of people's science illiteracy that it would be funny if it weren't so sad. They usually revolve, until someone finds something new they think they can argue technically. Like the "fact" that New York City, which has EPA exemption from the level of water filtering most other cities must adhere to, is pristine. Even if they carry it from the Catskills in buckets to Manhattan, its going to get some kind of contamination.

As you probably guessed, most of this pseudo-science is related to clean water. Here are thoughts on some of the biggies:

A study of earth science in places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York will tell you that natural gas regularly escapes from shallow geological formations to the Earth's surface. Private water wells, which do not require the elaborate casings gas wells do (because they are not regulated by anyone) are often the path of least resistance to the surface. In fact, you don't really need to study it at all. Some who've grown up in those areas will tell you they've been lighting their flowing faucets afire forever. Great teenager party trick.

The real danger of natural gas coming to the surface is that it can be explosive in small quarters. Common sense -- and any water well driller worth his or her salt -- will tell well owners that private water wells must be vented to the outside -- most specifically, so that gas from underground can escape to the atmosphere. I've heard that some people have been known to vent their water wells into their houses in the winter to avoid the lines freezing. Bad idea. You also shouldn't cover wells with a cute plastic rock, a little wooden house, or in the Dimock case, an 8 ft concrete slab, as I've heard it described. Gas well drilling or no gas well drilling, covering a water well vent is asking for trouble. Simple science -- pressure builds, strengthens, moves obstruction on its escape from the ground. Otherwise known as an "explosion."

When it comes to the Marcellus, anyone who's read the misinformation circulating on fracing, and most of it is misinformation, wants to know, "is this process safe?" The answer lies in the very process itself, and the science used to develop it.

Fracing in the Marcellus occurs somewhere between 5,000 and 8,000ft below the surface. (for perspective, if you stand at the South rim of the Grand Canyon, the floor is at 5,000). Shale is relatively non-porous, which for the sake of this discussion means gas doesn't readily flow from it, but is actually locked inside of it. Using powerful equipment, fracing forces a mixture of water, sand and additives through the well to "fracture" the rock, and allow the gas to flow from the rock, into the well and through pipelines to end users. The additives, used in small, diluted amounts, help the sandy water travel through the well (surfactants) and kill mold and bacterial growth in the well (biocide).

In reverse, a similar amount of energy is used to "flowback" the well, or suck out the water so it can produce at optimal performance. Producers get about 50% of what they force in back out. Why? Here's how one geologist explained it to me. Think of a wet sponge lying in your driveway after you wash your car. You wring water from it, again and again. No more is coming out, but the sponge is still wet. To wring the rest of the water from the sponge takes incrementally more and more pressure or energy. At some point, much of the water is out, but the amount of energy you would need to expend to get the sponge completely dry far outweighs the benefit of getting the water out.

Think of the Shale as the sponge. Some water may be trapped inside, but it would take a major energy force for that water to leave the formation and travel anywhere, let alone 5,000 to 8,000 ft to the drinking water aquifer, which resides around 1,000 ft. As a result, although many have alleged it, fracing/fracing chemicals have never been shown to be the cause of any drinking water contamination event. Its almost impossible from the formation itself.

Yet the idea that frac fluid will kill entire towns and cities via drinking water persists. People have survived nuclear fallout, and a little soap and bug killer is going to kill us all? Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? And unscientific.

If you have an interest in the Marcellus, and hear stories about "studies" and "research," like filmmakers who take their own water samples and take them to labs rather than having a professional do the work, do your own homework. Back check me if you'd like. I don't mind if you disagree.

But some people do. Last time I challenged someone on the "science" behind a water claim, he threatened to poison my well with antifreeze.