A Review of Aboutnaturalgas.com

Chances are, you've heard of Hydraulic Fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking".  It's a political, environmental, and social buzzword.  I read an advertisement in the New York Times that was a letter to Michelle Obama from mothers across the United States who were opposed to fracking. 

The main idea of fracking is to access natural gas deposits in the US, the spotlight is on the Marcellus Shale in the Northeastern US.  As with any action, there are unintended consequences.  I also recently saw "Gasland", the documentary that was an eye opener for me about the potential hazards of fracking.  I decided to go to the other end to see an industry's take on fracking.  Here is the main website that I accessed through ExxonMobil's website.


I know that not all industries are the same.  I know that what ExxonMobil (or at least whoever manages their website) believes may not encompass what every single person involved in natural gas drilling and extraction thinks.  As a result, I am not reviewing people, I am reviewing viewpoints, opinions, and the sources from which they are created.

After looking over the above website and a scientific paper--which is a draft dated December 2011--cited by the letter to Michelle Obama (see first link), I decided to give my feedback as well:

PLEASE NOTE:  The following is my personal review.  I have no affiliation with either side of the issue, just my informed opinion.  If you don't agree (or even if you do) with me, I'm willing (and would really like to) compare and contrast our opinions.  However, I will only tolerate civil, educated conversations and debates. 


A Review of ABOUTNATURALGAS.COM

Before review:  Slightly Skeptical, but Open
After review:  Skeptical, but Open

Things to note: I accessed this site directly through the ExxonMobil website by clicking on their "about natural gas" link.


As a scientist, I want both sides of the story.  I have the environmentalist side from the documentary "Gasland" and the letter above (plus one of the scientific papers cited in the letter:  decided to go straight to the source and get opinions from the ExxonMobil website, which led me to the site listed above.  The site begins to give a background on Natural Gas and fracking, and this is the second sentence (accessed on 5/14/2012):

"Several studies have shown that recent innovations, particularly combining hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling, have unlocked vast new supplies of domestic natural gas that are plentiful enough to provide 100 years of supply at current demand levels."

Where are my citations?  Where are these studies?  I'd really love to see them.

Then I went to the Technology and Process Tab and selected the hydraulic fracturing fluid link.  This is the first paragraph (accessed on 5/14/2012) on that page:

"Hydraulic fracturing fluid is typically comprised of approximately 98 to 99.5 percent water and sand and 0.5 to 2 percent chemical additives. Most of the chemical constituents that make up fracturing fluid additives can be found in common household items or in the food and drinks we consume. The chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluid are used to reduce friction and protect the rock formation, thereby making the hydraulic fracturing process safer and more efficient."

Finally, we're getting some numbers.  Notice what they are:  Percentages.  Red flag!  Percent of what?
I read on: 

"The water used in the hydraulic fracturing process typically comes from surface or groundwater sources. Water is only required for a short period during the drilling process and does not represent a long-term commitment. Local geology, geography, hydrology and other factors shape water requirements for hydraulic fracturing, but the amount of freshwater required for drilling and fracking a typical horizontal well is usually equivalent to about three to six Olympic-size (50 meters by 25 meters) swimming pools. Thousands of horizontal gas wells have been drilled and completed in and near municipalities and the water use has not been found to impact water available for residential, municipal, agricultural or industrial users."

I noticed was that they gave an analogy rather than a number to describe how much freshwater is required:  3 to 6 "Olympic-size (50 meters by 25 meters) swimming pools."

This is high school geometry:  they're giving area there, not volume.  We need volume (3 dimensions)!  So, I googled how big an olympic sized swimming pool is (50 meters by 25 meters by 2 meters (3 recommended), according to FINA, one of the associations in charge of aquatic Olympic sports.

If we do the math, that's 2500 cubic meters minimum in an Olympic sized swimming pool.  Times 3 for the minimum amount of freshwater used in fracking that is listed in the above paragraph, which is 7500 cubic meters.  0.5 percent (as cited from the previous paragraph) of 7500 cubic meters is 37.5 cubic meters of these chemicals (1 cubic meter is about 264 US gallons, so that means that there are about 9,906 US gallons of these chemicals in the fracking process, minimum, with the numbers they gave).

Also, when compared to "Gasland", these are very conservative numbers.
 


Would that be so hard to put on the website? Oh, by the way, I'd like a citation for the last sentence of that paragraph as well.

Then they list (all?) the chemicals they put into this cocktail at the bottom of the page.  If you notice, one of the columns in the chart lists "Common use of chemical ingredient".  Just because something is used in the house doesn't mean it's safe to come into contact with.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to drink any bleach or laundry detergent.  I'll pass on the rat poison too.  There are reasons for a Poison Control Center.


The site then said to visit FracFocus.org for more details on the chemicals, which I did.  This is the introductory paragraph to the list of chemicals used (accessed 5/14/12):

"As previously noted, chemicals perform many functions in a hydraulic fracturing job.  Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing.  The following is a list of the chemicals used most often.  This chart is sorted alphabetically by the Product Function to make it easier for you to compare to the fracturing records."

Notice how is written:  "The following is a list of the chemicals used most often."    I want ALL the chemicals used!  Okay, fine, I'll use other sources to find that then.  Very fishy....

This paragraph is under the Chemicals and Public Disclosure Tab (accessed 5/14/12):

"Section 313 of EPCRA authorizes EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) ‡, which is a publicly available database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities. EPA issues a list of industries that must report releases for the database. To date, EPA has not included oil and gas extraction as an industry that must report under TRI. This is not an exemption in the law. Rather it is a decision by EPA that this industry is not a high priority for reporting under TRI. Part of the rationale for this decision is based on the fact that most of the information required under TRI is already reported by producers to state agencies that make it publicly available. Also, TRI reporting from the hundreds of thousands of oil and gas sites would overwhelm the existing EPA reporting system and make it difficult to extract meaningful data from the massive amount of information submitted."

"It is a decision by EPA that this industry is not a high priority for reporting under TRI"?   What?  Citation please!  Also, the fact that the information "is already reported by producers to state agencies" is no excuse why not to publish what chemicals, let alone all of them, they use in Fracking Fluid. There are a lot of links popped onto this page.  If there are public access sites, those should be included as well in the disclosure. 

In summary, I believe that this website (aboutnaturalgas.com) is very vague and is not a good source of information for the general public to learn about fracking due to an almost bias presentation.  The site should include more details and give full disclosures and cite many of their statements.


***

You don't need to be an expert to become an expert:  Think.  Research.  Above all, be skeptical.