Shale gas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For gas generated by oil shale pyrolysis, see Oil shale gas.

This article may be excessively focused toward the subject's advocacy or opinions. Wikipedia articles
should concentrate on factual information. Please help in modifying article to conform with Wikipedia's
Manual of Style. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (October 2013)


48 structural basins with shale gas and oil, in 38 countries, per the US Energy Information Administration, 2011.


As of 2013, the US, Canada, and China are the only countries producing shale gas in commercial quantities. The US and Canada are the only
countries where shale gas is a significant part of the gas supply.
Shale gas is natural gas that is found trapped within shale formations.
[1]
Shale gas has become an increasingly important
source of natural gas in the United States since the start of this century, and interest has spread to potential gas shales in the
rest of the world. In 2000 shale gas provided only 1% of U.S. natural gas production; by 2010 it was over 20% and the U.S.
government's Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2035, 46% of the United States' natural gas supply will come
from shale gas.
[2]

Some analysts expect that shale gas will greatly expand worldwide energy supply.
[3]
China is estimated to have the world's
largest shale gas reserves.
[4]
A study by the Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University concluded that increased shale
gas production in the US and Canada could help prevent Russia and Persian Gulf countries from dictating higher prices for the
gas they export to European countries.
[5]

The Obama administration believes that increased shale gas development will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
[6]
(in
2012, US carbon dioxide emissions dropped to a 20-year low
[7]
). Human and public health will both benefit from shale gas
displacing coal burning.
A 2013 review by the United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change noted that most studies of the subject have
estimated that life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shale gas are similar to those of conventional natural gas, and
are much less than those from coal, usually about half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal; the noted exception was a 2011
study by Howarth and others of Cornell University, which concluded that shale gas GHG emissions were as high as those of
coal.
[8][9]
More recent studies have also concluded that life-cycle shale gas GHG emissions are much less than those of
coal,
[10][11][12][13]
among them, studies by Natural Resources Canada (2012),
[14]
and a consortium formed by the US National
Renewable Energy Laboratory with a number of universities (2012).
[15]

Some 2011 studies pointed to high rates of decline of some shale gas wells as an indication that shale gas production may
ultimately be much lower than is currently projected.
[16][17]
But shale-gas discoveries are also opening up substantial new
resources of tight oil / "shale oil".
[18]

Contents
[hide]
1 History
o 1.1 US
2 Geology
3 Shale gas by country
4 Environment
o 4.1 Climate
o 4.2 Water and air quality
o 4.3 Earthquakes
o 4.4 The relative impacts of natural gas and coal
4.4.1 Human health impacts
4.4.2 Landscape impacts
4.4.3 Water
5 Economics
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
History[edit]
US[edit]


Derrick and platform of drilling gas wells in Marcellus Shale - Pennsylvania
Shale gas was first extracted as a resource in Fredonia, New York, in 1821,
[19][20]
in shallow, low-pressure fractures. Horizontal
drilling began in the 1930s, and in 1947 a well was first fracked in the U.S.
[2]

Federal price controls on natural gas led to shortages in the 1970s.
[21]
Faced with declining natural gas production, the federal
government invested in many supply alternatives, including the Eastern Gas Shales Project, which lasted from 1976 to 1992,
and the annual FERC-approved research budget of the Gas Research Institute, where the federal government began extensive
research funding in 1982, disseminating the results to industry.
[2]
The federal government also provided tax credits and rules
benefiting the industry in the1980 Energy Act.
[2]
The Department of Energy later partnered with private gas companies to
complete the first successful air-drilled multi-fracture horizontal well in shale in 1986. The federal government further
incentivized drilling in shale via the Section 29 tax credit for unconventional gas from 1980-2000. Microseismic imaging, a
crucial input to both hydraulic fracturing in shale and offshore oil drilling, originated from coalbeds research at Sandia National
Laboratories. The DOE program also applied two technologies that had been developed previously by industry, massive
hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, to shale gas formations.
[22]
that led to microseismic imaging.
Although the Eastern Gas Shales Project had increased gas production in the Appalachian and Michigan basins, shale gas was
still widely seen as marginal to uneconomic without tax credits, and shale gas provided only 1.6% of US gas production in
2000, when the federal tax credits expired.
[21]

George P. Mitchell is regarded as the father of the shale gas industry, by making it commercially viable in the Barnett Shale by
getting costs down to $4 per million British Thermal Units.
[23]
Mitchell Energy achieved the first economical shale fracture in
1998 using slick-water fracturing.
[24][25][26]
Since then, natural gas from shale has been the fastest growing contributor to total
primary energy in the United States, and has led many other countries to pursue shale deposits. According to the IEA, shale
gas could increase technically recoverable natural gas resources by almost 50%.
[27]

Geology[edit]


An illustration of shale gas compared to other types of gas deposits.
Because shales ordinarily have insufficient permeability to allow significant fluid flow to a well bore, most shales are not
commercial sources of natural gas. Shale gas is one of a number of unconventional sources of natural gas; others
include coalbed methane, tight sandstones, andmethane hydrates. Shale gas areas are often known as resource plays
[28]
(as
opposed to exploration plays). The geological risk of not finding gas is low in resource plays, but the potential profits per
successful well are usually also lower.
[citation needed]

Shale has low matrix permeability, so gas production in commercial quantities requires fractures to provide permeability. Shale
gas has been produced for years from shales with natural fractures; the shale gas boom in recent years has been due to
modern technology in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to create extensive artificial fractures around well bores.
[citation needed]

Horizontal drilling is often used with shale gas wells, with lateral lengths up to 10,000 feet (3,000 m) within the shale, to create
maximum borehole surface area in contact with the shale.
[citation needed]

Shales that host economic quantities of gas have a number of common properties. They are rich in organic material (0.5% to
25%),
[29]
and are usually mature petroleum source rocks in the thermogenic gas window, where high heat and pressure have
converted petroleum to natural gas. They are sufficiently brittle and rigid enough to maintain open fractures.
Some of the gas produced is held in natural fractures, some in pore spaces, and some is adsorbed onto the organic material.
The gas in the fractures is produced immediately; the gas adsorbed onto organic material is released as the formation pressure
is drawn down by the well.
[citation needed]

Shale gas by country[edit]
Main articles: Shale gas by country and List of countries by recoverable shale gas
Although the shale gas potential of many nations is being studied, as of 2013, only the US, Canada, and China produce shale
gas in commercial quantities, and only the US and Canada have significant shale gas production.
[30]

The table below is based on data collected by the Energy Information Administration agency of the United States Department
of Energy.
[31]
Numbers for the estimated amount of "technically recoverable"
[32]
shale gas resources are provided alongside
numbers for proven natural gas reserves.

Country
Estimated technically recoverable shale gas
(trillion cubic feet)
Proven natural gas reserves of all types
(trillion cubic feet)
Date of
Report
[31]

1
China
1,115 124 2013
2
Argentina
802 12 2013
3
Algeria
707 159 2013
4 United States 665 318 2013
5 Canada 573 68 2013
6
Mexico
545 17 2013
7
South Africa
485 - 2013
8 Australia 437 43 2013

Country
Estimated technically recoverable shale gas
(trillion cubic feet)
Proven natural gas reserves of all types
(trillion cubic feet)
Date of
Report
[31]

9
Russia
285 1,688 2013
10
Brazil
245 14 2013
11
Indonesia
580 150 2013
The US EIA had made an earlier estimate of total recoverable shale gas in various countries in 2011, which for some countries
differed significantly from the 2013 estimates.
[33]
The total recoverable shale gas in the United States, which was estimated at
862 trillion cubic feet in 2011, was revised downward to 665 trillion cubic feet in 2013. Recoverable shale gas in Canada, which
was estimated to be 388 TCF in 2011, was revised upward to 573 TCF in 2013.
For the United States, EIA estimated (2013) a total "wet natural gas" resource of 2,431 tcf, including both shale and
conventional gas. Shale gas was estimated to be 27% of the total resource.
[31]
"Wet natural gas" is methane plus natural gas
liquids, and is more valuable than dry gas.
[34][35]

For the rest of the world (excluding US), EIA estimated (2013) a total wet natural gas resource of 20,451 trillion cubic feet
(579.110
12
m
3
). Shale gas was estimated to be 32% of the total resource.
[31]

Europe has estimated shale gas reserves of 639 trillion cubic feet (18.110
12
m
3
) compared with America's 862 trillion cubic
feet (24.410
12
m
3
), but its geology is more complicated and the oil and gas more expensive to extract, with a well likely to cost
as much as three-and-a-half times more than one in the United States.
[36]

Environment[edit]
See also: Natural gas and Hydraulic fracturing
The extraction and use of shale gas can affect the environment through the leaking of extraction chemicals and waste into
water supplies, the leaking of greenhouse gases during extraction, and the pollution caused by the improper processing of
natural gas. A challenge to preventing pollution is that shale gas extractions varies widely in this regard, even between different
wells in the same project; the processes that reduce pollution sufficiently in one extraction may not be enough in another.
[2]

In 2013 the European Parliament agreed that environmental impact assessments will not be mandatory for shale gas
exploration activities and shale gas extraction activities will be subject to the same terms as other gas extraction projects.
[37]

Climate[edit]
Barack Obama's administration has sometimes promoted shale gas, in part because of their belief that it releases
fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than other fossil fuels. In a 2010 letter to President Obama, Martin Apple of
the Council of Scientific Society Presidents cautioned against a national policy of developing shale gas without a more certain
scientific basis for the policy. This umbrella organization that represents 1.4 million scientists noted that shale gas development
may have greater GHG emissions and environmental costs than previously appreciated.
[38]

In late 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[39]
issued a new report, the first update on emission factors for
greenhouse gas emissions by the oil and gas industry by the EPA since 1996. In this new report, the EPA concluded that shale
gas emits larger amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, than does conventional gas, but still far less than coal.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, although it stays in the atmosphere for only one tenth as long a period as carbon
dioxide. Recent evidence suggests that methane has a global warming potential (GWP) that is 105-fold greater than carbon
dioxide when viewed over a 20-year period and 33-fold greater when viewed over a 100-year period, compared mass-to-
mass.
[40]
However, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a pre-eminent authority on this issue,
ascribes a GWP of only 72 to methane over a 25-year period, and only 25 over a 100-year period.
[41]

Several studies which have estimated lifecycle methane leakage from shale gas development and production have found a
wide range of leakage rates, from less than 1% of total production to nearly 8%.
[42]
Using data from the Environmental
Protection Agencys most recent Greenhouse Gas Inventory
[43]
yields a methane leakage rate of about 1.4%, down from 2.3%
from the EPAs previous Inventory.
[44]

The most comprehensive study of methane leakage from shale gas to date, initiated by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
and released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on September 16, 2013,
[45]
finds that fugitive emissions
in key stages of the natural gas production process are significantly lower than estimates in the EPAs national emissions
inventory (which are already quite low). The study reports direct measurements from 190 onshore natural gas sites across the
country and estimates a leakage rate of 0.42% for gas production. Although the EDF study did not cover all stages of natural
gas supply chain, subsequent studies are planned to estimate leakage rates in others parts of the system.
A 2011 study published in Climatic Change Letters controversially claimed that the production of electricity using shale gas may
lead to as much or more life-cycle GWP than electricity generated with oil or coal.
[46]
In that peer-reviewed paper, Cornell
University professor Robert W. Howarth, a marine ecologist, and colleagues claimed that once methane leak and venting
impacts are included, the life-cycle greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas is far worse than those of coal and fuel oil when
viewed for the integrated 20-year period after emission. On the 100-year integrated time frame, this analysis claims shale gas is
comparable to coal and worse than fuel oil. However, numerous studies have pointed out critical flaws with that paper and/or
come to completely different conclusions, including assessments by experts at the U.S. Department of Energy,
[47]
peer-
reviewed studies by Carnegie Mellon University
[48]
and the University of Maryland,
[49]
and even the Natural Resources Defense
Council, which concluded that the Howarth et al. paper's use of a 20-year time horizon for global warming potential of methane
is "too short a period to be appropriate for policy analysis."
[50]

In January 2012, Howarth's own colleagues at Cornell University, Lawrence Cathles et al., responded with their own peer-
reviewed assessment, noting that the Howarth paper was "seriously flawed" because it "significantly overestimate[s] the fugitive
emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction, undervalue[s] the contribution of 'green technologies' to reducing
those emissions to a level approaching that of conventional gas, base[s] their comparison between gas and coal on heat rather
than electricity generation (almost the sole use of coal), and assume[s] a time interval over which to compute the relative
climate impact of gas compared to coal that does not capture the contrast between the long residence time of CO2 and the
short residence time of methane in the atmosphere." The author of that response, Lawrence Cathles, concludes that "shale gas
has a GHG footprint that is half and perhaps a third that of coal," based upon "more reasonable leakage rates and bases of
comparison."
[51]

In April 2013 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dramatically lowered its estimate of how much methane leaks from
wells, pipelines and other facilities during production and delivery of natural gas by 20 percent. According to the Associated
Press, the EPA report on greenhouse emissions credited tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry for cutting an
average of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions annually from 1990 through 2010, a reduction of more than 850
million metric tons overall. The AP noted, "The EPA revisions came even though natural gas production has grown by nearly 40
percent since 1990."
[52]

Water and air quality[edit]
Chemicals are added to the water to facilitate the underground fracturing process that releases natural gas. Fracturing fluid is
primarily water and approximately 0.5% chemical additives (friction reducer, agents countering rust, agents killing
microorganism). Since (depending on the size of the area) millions of liters of water are used, this means that hundreds of
thousands liters of chemicals are often injected into the subsurface.
[53]
About 50% to 70% of the injected volume of
contaminated water is recovered and stored in above-ground ponds to await removal by tanker. The remaining volume remains
in the subsurface. Hydraulic fracturing opponents fear that it can lead to contamination ofgroundwater aquifers, though the
industry deems this "highly unlikely". However, foul-smelling odors and heavy metals contaminating the local water supply
above-ground have been reported.
[54]

Besides using water and industrial chemicals, it is also possible to frack shale gas with only liquified propane gas. This reduces
the environmental degradation considerably. The method was invented by GasFrac, of Alberta, Canada.
[55]

Hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
[56]

A study published in May 2011 concluded that shale gas wells have seriously contaminated shallow groundwater supplies
in northeastern Pennsylvania with flammable methane. However, the study does not discuss how pervasive such
contamination might be in other areas drilled for shale gas.
[57]

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced 23 June 2011 that it will examine claims of water
pollution related to hydraulic fracturing in Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Louisiana.
[58]
On 8 December
2011, the EPA issued a draft finding which stated that groundwater contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming may be the result of
fracking in the area. The EPA stated that the finding was specific to the Pavilion area, where the fracking techniques differ from
those used in other parts of the U.S. Doug Hock, a spokesman for the company which owns the Pavilion gas field, said that it is
unclear whether the contamination came from the fracking process.
[59]
Wyoming's Governor Matt Mead called the EPA draft
report "scientifically questionable" and stressed the need for additional testing.
[60]
The Casper Star-Tribune also reported on 27
December 2011, that the EPA's sampling and testing procedures "didnt follow their own protocol" according to Mike Purcell,
the director of the Wyoming Water Development Commission.
[61]

A 2011 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that "The environmental impacts of shale development
are challenging but manageable." The study addressed groundwater contamination, noting "There has been concern that these
fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing uid, but there is no evidence that
this is occurring". This study blames known instances of methane contamination on a small number of sub-standard operations,
and encourages the use of industry best practices to prevent such events from recurring.
[62]

In a report dated July 25, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it had completed its testing of
private drinking water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania. Data previously supplied to the agency by residents, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, and Cabot Oil and Gas Exploration had indicated levels of arsenic, barium or
manganese in well water at five homes at levels that could present a health concern. In response, water treatment systems that
can reduce concentrations of those hazardous substances to acceptable levels at the tap were installed at affected homes.
Based on the outcome of sampling after the treatment systems were installed, the EPA concluded that additional action by the
Agency was not required.
[63]

A Duke University study of Blacklick Creek (Pennsylvania), carried out over two years, took samples from the creek upstream
and down stream of the discharge point of Josephine Brine Treatment Facility. Radium levels in the sediment at the discharge
point are around 200 times the amount upstream of the facility. The radium levels are "above regulated levels" and present the
"danger of slow bio-accumulation" eventually in fish. The Duke study "is the first to use isotope hydrology to connect the dots
between shale gas waste, treatment sites and discharge into drinking water supplies." The study recommended "independent
monitoring and regulation" in the United States due to perceived deficiencies in self-regulation.
[64][65]

What is happening is the direct result of a lack of any regulation. If the Clean Water Act was applied in 2005 when the shale
gas boom started this would have been prevented. In the UK, if shale gas is going to develop, it should not follow the American
example and should impose environmental regulation to prevent this kind of radioactive buildup.
Avner Vengosh
[64]

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Water Act applies to surface stream discharges from shale
gas wells:
6) Does the Clean Water Act apply to discharges from Marcellus Shale Drilling operations?
Yes. Natural gas drilling can result in discharges to surface waters. The discharge of this water is subject to
requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
[66]

In China, shale gas development is seen as a way to shift away from coal and decrease serious air pollution
problems created by burning coal.
[67]

Earthquakes[edit]
Hydraulic fracturing routinely produces microseismic events much too small to be detected except by sensitive
instruments. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the
fracturing.
[68]
However, as of late 2012, there have been three instances of hydraulic fracturing, through induced
seismicity, triggering quakes large enough to be felt by people in the United States.
[69]

On 26 April 2012, the Asahi Shimbun reported that United States Geological Survey scientists have been
investigating the recent increase in the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquake in the midcontinent of
the United States. Beginning in 2001, the average number of earthquakes occurring per year of magnitude 3 or
greater increased significantly, culminating in a six-fold increase in 2011 over 20th century levels. A researcher in
Center for Earthquake Research and Information of University of Memphisassumes water pushed back into
the fault tends to cause earthquake by slippage of fault.
[70][71]

Over 109 small earthquakes (Mw 0.43.9) were detected during January 2011 to February 2012 in the Youngstown,
Ohio area, where there were no known earthquakes in the past. These shocks were close to a deep uid injection
well. The 14 month seismicity included six felt earthquakes and culminated with a Mw 3.9 shock on 31 December
2011. Among the 109 shocks, 12 events greater than Mw 1.8 were detected by regional network and accurately
relocated, whereas 97 small earthquakes (0.4<Mw<1.8) were detected by the waveform correlation detector.
Accurately located earthquakes were along a subsurface fault trending ENE-WSWconsistent with the focal
mechanism of the main shock and occurred at depths 3.54.0 km in the Precambrian basement. We conclude that
the recent earthquakes in Youngstown, Ohio were induced by the uid injection at a deep injection well due to
increased pore pressure along the preexisting subsurface faults located close to the wellbore. We found that the
seismicity initiated at the eastern end of the subsurface faultclose to the injection point, and migrated toward the
westaway from the wellbore, indicating that the expanding high uid pressure front increased the pore pressure
along its path and progressively triggered the earthquakes. We observe that several periods of quiescence of
seismicity follow the minima in injection volumes and pressure, which may indicate that the earthquakes were
directly caused by the pressure buildup and stopped when pressure dropped. On June 19, 2012, the United States
Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources held a hearing entitled, "Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy
Technologies." Dr. Murray Hitzman, the Charles F. Fogarty Professor of Economic Geology in the Department of
Geology and Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO testified that "About 35,000
hydraulically fractured shale gas wells exist in the United States. Only one case of felt seismicity in the United States
has been described in which hydraulic fracturing for shale gas development is suspected, but not confirmed.
Globally only one case of felt induced seismicity at Blackpool, England has been confirmed as being caused by
hydraulic fracturing for shale gas development."
[72]

The relative impacts of natural gas and coal[edit]
Human health impacts[edit]
A comprehensive review of the public health effects of energy fuel cycles in Europe finds that coal causes 6 to 98
deaths per TWh (average 25 deaths per TWh), compared to natural gas 1 to 11 deaths per TWh (average 3 deaths
per TWh). These numbers include both accidental deaths and pollution-related deaths.
[73]
Coal mining is one of the
most dangerous professions in the United States, resulting in between 20 and 40 deaths annually, compared to
between 10 and 20 for oil and gas extraction.
[74]
Worker accident risk is also far higher with coal than gas. In the
United States, the oil and gas extraction industry is associated with one to two injuries per 100 workers each year.
Coal mining, on the other hand, contributes to four injuries per 100 workers each year. Coal mines collapse, and can
take down roads, water and gas lines, buildings and many lives with them.
[75]

Average damages from coal pollutants are two orders of magnitude larger than damages from natural gas. SO2,
NOx, and particulate matter from coal plants create annual damages of $156 million per plant compared to $1.5
million per gas plant.
[76]
Coal-fired power plants in the United States emit 17-40 times more SOx emissions per MWh
than natural gas, and 1-17 times as much NOx per MWh.
[77]
Lifecycle CO2 emissions from coal plants are 1.8-2.3
times greater (per KWh) than natural gas emissions.
[78]

The air quality advantages of natural gas over coal have been borne out in Pennsylvania, according to studies by the
RAND Corporation and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The shale boom in Pennsylvania
has led to dramatically lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, fine particulates, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
[12]

Noted physicist Richard A. Muller argues that the public health benefits from shale gas, by displacing harmful air
pollution from coal, far outweigh its environmental costs. In a 2013 report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Muller
writes that air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the
developing world. The report states that "Environmentalists who oppose the development of shale gas and fracking
are making a tragic mistake."
[13]

Landscape impacts[edit]
Coal mining radically alters whole mountain and forest landscapes. Beyond the coal removed from the earth, large
areas of forest are turned inside out and blackened with toxic and radioactive chemicals. There have been
reclamation successes, but hundreds of thousands of acres of abandoned surface mines in the United States have
not been reclaimed, and reclamation of certain terrain (including steep terrain) is nearly impossible.
[79]

Where coal exploration requires altering landscapes far beyond the area where the coal is, aboveground natural gas
equipment takes up just one percent of the total surface land area from where gas will be extracted.
[80]
The
environmental impact of gas drilling has changed radically in recent years. Vertical wells into conventional formations
used to take up one-fifth of the surface area above the resource, a twenty-fold higher impact than current horizontal
drilling requires. A six-acre horizontal drill pad can thus extract gas from an underground area 1,000 acres in size.
The impact of natural gas on landscapes is even less and shorter in duration than the impact of wind turbines. The
footprint of a shale gas derrick (3-5 acres) is only a little larger than the land area necessary for a single wind
turbine.
[81]
But it requires less concrete, stands one-third as tall, and is present for just 30 days instead of 2030
years. Between 7 and 15 weeks are spent setting up the drill pad and completing the actual hydraulic fracture. At
that point, the drill pad is removed, leaving behind a single garage-sized wellhead that remains for the lifetime of the
well.
Water[edit]
With coal mining, waste materials are piled at the surface of the mine, creating aboveground runoff that pollutes and
alters the flow of regional streams. As rain percolates through waste piles, soluble components are dissolved in the
runoff and cause elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in local water bodies.
[79]
Sulfates, calcium, carbonates
and bicarbonates the typical runoff products of coalmine waste materials make water unusable for industry or
agriculture and undrinkable for humans.
[82]
Acid mine wastewater can drain into groundwater, causing significant
contamination. Explosive blasting in a mine can cause groundwater to seep to lower-than-normal depths or connect
two aquifers that were previously distinct, exposing both to contamination by mercury, lead, and other toxic heavy
metals.
Contamination of surface waterways and groundwater with fracking fluids can be problematic. Shale gas deposits
are generally several thousand feet below ground. There have been instances of methane migration, improper
treatment of recovered wastewater, and pollution via reinjection wells.
In most cases, the life-cycle water intensity and pollution associated with coal production and combustion far
outweigh those related to shale gas production. Coal resource production requires at least twice as much water per
million British thermal units (mmBTU) compared to shale gas production.
[83]
And while regions like Pennsylvania
have experienced an absolute increase in water demand for energy production thanks to the shale boom, shale
wells actually produce less than half the wastewater per unit of energy compared to conventional natural gas.
[80]

Coal-fired power plants consume two to five times as much water as natural gas plants. Where 520-1040 gallons of
water are required per MWh of coal, gas-fired combined cycle power requires 130-500 gallons per MWh.
[77]
The
environmental impact of water consumption at the point of power generation depends on the type of power plant:
plants either use evaporative cooling towers to release excess heat or discharge water to nearby rivers.
[84]
Natural
gas combined-cycle power (NGCC), which captures the exhaust heat generated by combusting natural gas to power
a steam generator, are considered the most efficient large-scale thermal power plants. One study found that the life-
cycle demand for water from coal power in Texas could be more than halved by switching the fleet to NGCC.
[85]

All told, shale gas development in the United States represents less than half a percent of total domestic freshwater
consumption, although this portion can reach as high as 25 percent in particularly arid regions.
[86]

Economics[edit]
See also: Natural gas prices
Although shale gas has been produced for more than 100 years in the Appalachian Basin and the Illinois Basin of
the United States, the wells were often marginally economic. Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
completions have made shale-gas wells more profitable.
[87]
Improvements in moving drilling rigs between nearby
locations, and the use of single well pads for multiple wells have increased the productivity of drilling shale gas
wells.
[88]
As of June 2011, the validity of the claims of economic viability of these wells has begun to be publicly
questioned.
[89]
Shale gas tends to cost more to produce than gas from conventional wells, because of the expense of
the massive hydraulic fracturingtreatments required to produce shale gas, and of horizontal drilling.
[90]

The cost of extracting offshore shale gas in the UK were estimated to be more than $200 per barrel of oil equivalent
(UK North Sea oil prices were about $120 per barrel in April 2012). However, no cost figures were made public for
onshore shale gas.
[91]

North America has been the leader in developing and producing shale gas. The economic success of the Barnett
Shale play in Texas in particular has spurred the search for other sources of shale gas across the United
States and Canada,
[citation needed]

Some Texas residents think fracking is using too much of their groundwater, but drought and other growing uses are
also part of the causes of the water shortage there.
[92]

A Visiongain research report calculated the 2011 worth of the global shale-gas market as $26.66 billion.
[93]

A 2011 New York Times investigation of industrial emails and internal documents found that the financial benefits of
unconventional shale gas extraction may be less than previously thought, due to companies intentionally overstating
the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves.
[94]

In first quarter 2012, the United States imported 840 billion cubic feet (Bcf) (785 from Canada) while exporting 400
Bcf (mostly to Canada); both mainly by pipeline.
[95]
Almost none is exported by ship as LNG, as that would require
expensive facilities. In 2012, prices went down to $3/MMBtu due to shale gas.
[96]

A recent academic paper on the economic impacts of shale gas development in the US finds that natural gas prices
have dropped dramatically in places with shale deposits with active exploration. Natural gas for industrial use has
become cheaper by around 30% compared to the rest of the US.
[97]
This stimulates local energy intensive
manufacturing growth, but brings the lack of adequate pipeline capacity in the US in sharp relief.
[98]

Texas residents think fracking is using too much of their groundwater, but drought and other growing uses are also
part of the causes of the water shortage there. One of the byproducts of shale gas exploration is the opening up of
deep underground shale deposits to "tight oil" or shale oil production. By 2035, shale oil production could "boost the
world economy by up to $2.7 trillion, a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report says. It has the potential to reach up
to 12 percent of the worlds total oil production touching 14 million barrels a day revolutionizing the global
energy markets over the next few decades."
[18]

According to a 2013 Forbes magazine article, generating electricity by burning natural gas is cheaper than burning
coal if the price of gas remains below $3/mmBTU.
[23]

See also[edit]
Biogas
Oil sands
Tight gas
References[edit]
1. Jump up^ "U.S. Energy Information Adm