More or Less 6.5 Percent of the Gas from a Shale Field is Recovered

Residual Wastewater Tanker Truck Out of Control in Holding Pond

Commentary by S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor and Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

Recorded human history goes back some 8 or 10,000 years. How much future does the human race have?

I recently came across a reference to an article in the Oil and Gas Journal published in 2012 which states that the following: “The recovery efficiency for the 5 major [shale gas] plays averages 6.5% …. This contrasts significantly with recovery efficiencies of 75 – 80% for conventional gas fields.” That means that with present technology, some 93.5% of the gas in place is left behind, with the shale altered in such a way that requires still another technology as yet un-conceived-of to remove it, if it is ever done. Not what you would call a mature, efficient technology.

I sent the above picture to a friend at the top of another business in California. He sarcastically remarked, “Is that tanker demonstrating a method of loading the truck by submerging it, like pushing a water pail under the surface of a pond?” Then he said, “If they can’t even keep their trucks from falling into the pond, what can they be expected to control?”

Another interesting article appeared in the Financial Times section on CNBC. Shale gas now amounts to 40 percent of all gas produced in the U. S. Also, the vast reserve claimed depends on what can be removed with technology available today, but without regard for cost of extraction. To use this small fraction it must be available for 12, 14, 18 dollars a thousand someday. When?

Resource exhaustion, and global warming are among several hugely divisive public concerns today. Ignoring them seems to be the litmus test for conservatives. Modern “conservatism” isn’t an extension of what it meant to be a conservative 40 or 50 years ago, but a radical new position favoring big business and concentration of wealth in the hands of those who control these business interests. The rest of us should be content with “trickle down,” to use Ronald Regan’s term. It is no accident that the leading climate change denier in the Senate is Jim Inhofe, of Oklahoma, where oil and gas rule.

There is an article in a newspaper from our state capitol that suggests some modern conservatives are getting the message. In part it reads: At a House hearing on climate change, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) mocked his Republican colleagues for refusing to acknowledge the truth and danger of global warming. “You need to be accountable for all of your costs,” Inglis said, referring to future costs, including environmental damage. “We need to put an ‘upstream tax’ at the mines and at the pipelines to pay for the social costs of [producing and transporting] fuel. We can increase costs of production and cut some taxes.” So what needs to be done can be done with classic conservative principles, he says.

Both considering resource exhaustion (allowing for a lengthy future of the human race) and global warming are wrapped up together. The replies to an article that appeared in Chemical and Engineering News in January include the following comments:

(1) The issue of exporting natural gas comes down to how fast we are willing to hydraulically fracture or “frack” shale to get the gas. The faster we go, the cheaper the gas and the greater will be the urge to export it.

(2) Could it be that the gas industry wants to rush, not just to make money today, but also fearing that slowing down would result in a better understanding of the risks?

And finally, (3). Decades ago, several people in the [chemical] industry were pointing out that crude oil (and natural gas) are so valuable as feedstocks for production of chemicals that maybe those fossil fuels should be saved for chemicals production rather than the ca. 4% currently used.

Tagged as: drilling, environmental impacts, fracking, natural gas, public health impacts, Shale development, shale gas recovery, tanker trucks