Natural Gas Debate Makes Its Way To Washington

Soaring energy costs and demand have prompted providers and consumers across the globe to look more toward accessible sources.

For the United States, topping the list of domestic possibilities is natural gas -- an option that has drawn plenty of debate from proponents and naysayers. Beyond the worries surrounding extraction via fracking, reports have also questioned the cost and availability of usable materials.

On Tuesday, those questions made their way to Washington, through a hearing discussing the recent results of an MIT report on "The Future of Natural Gas." The study sought to balance increasing interest in low-cost natural-gas production, with prevailing concerns that energy derived from shale could pose climate-change problems.

In attendance was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who spoke before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to express her support for expanding natural gas policies. The State Column posted her opening statement, which addresses how to fulfill the country's energy needs, while addressing the outlying qualms.

"Natural gas is clean-burning and abundant; it’s well understood and scalable; and it’s clearly in our best interest to ensure that we maintain a stable and affordable supply going forward," Sen. Murkowski said.

Murkowski's support paralleled the testimony of business officials aiming for more active investment opportunities. Dow Chemical Company Corporate Vice President George Blitz served as the only industry representative during the hearing, projecting a favorable outlook from that side of the development equation.

"Natural gas is a game changer," said Blitz in a press release. "It can fuel a renaissance in American manufacturing, but only if we produce enough of it, use it wisely and don't repeat the mistakes of the past."

Other political officials remain cautious about heaping full praise toward the natural gas movement. Also among the attendees was Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) -- a voice reviving recent struggles that the U.S. has encountered with natural gas usage. The Houston Chronicle's FuelFix notes that Bingaman referenced problems from the 2000's, when fears over low natural gas supply levels brought about some flat commercial decisions.

Dollar signs aside, residents living in areas ripe for fracking have their own batch of concerns. In May, ProPublica's Abrahm Lustgarten reported that a scientific study "linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire." Warning signs like these have some factions of the public on edge about the prospects of natural gas.

Mixed in with the water worries are possible geological consequences. Last month, a mining company halted drilling for shale gas in England after scientists grew concerned that two minor earthquakes could be linked to fracking.

Comments

[tonylaz]

12:10 AM on 08/16/2011

"Last month, a mining company halted drilling for shale gas in England after scientists grew concerned that two minor earthquakes could be linked to fracking."

Better two minor now than one major later.

[debberae]

03:20 PM on 07/21/2011

My mother and grandparents were from West Virginia. My mother' father was killed in a mine explosion as a child. My step-grandfather gave up mining when he began to develop symptoms of Black Lung Disease. He became an oil and gas man. As a child(50 yrs. ago)he would take me to horizontal gas wells in beautiful pristine rural areas of WV, KY, and OH.
Mining in these areas is not new. However, the mining and drilling industries in these states are not primarily concerned with the environment. Fracking is about increasing production as was strip-mining and mountaintop mining. WV in particular has been indifferent to the safety of its citizenry allowing unsafe mining practices, and myriad refineries and chemical plants.
Union Carbide, now Dow Chemical, just blocks from the state capitol produced the very same chemical responsible for the tragedy in Bhopal, India which occurred in 1984 killing over 3,000 people. Bayer Chemical announced only this year that they would stop production of this and other harmful pesticides at this plant.
Progress is one thing, but it is not worth it to put our lives and our planet at stake.

[realityCheckInTheMail]

02:41 PM on 07/22/2011

I think the point is that gas substitutes for coal, and is both safer and cleaner, and thus replacing coal with gas reduces the risks to the planet and our lives.

[debberae]

03:27 PM on 07/22/2011

Buried somewhere in there was the point that the gas is there. Fracking will increase production but is a more potentially harmful method of extraction.The industry is not primarily concerned with the environment. As to your point about using coal instead of gas I agree it is cleaner. Our local plant is in the process of converting from coal to gas.

[pita143]

09:41 PM on 07/20/2011

We have seen posts that repeatedly try to say that allowing Fracking will reduce our import of oil.....well sorry to tell you but Fracking is for Natural Gas, and very few vehicles in this Country run on Natural Gas.

We have multiple alternatives to heat our homes, we do not have alternatives to fresh clean water. It has been proven in several states that this procedure has caused damages to the Water Filter and has caused Towns to have to import water. We don't need the Natural Gas that bad, until a system of a SAFE DRILLING with NONTOXIC chemicals can be discovered, we need to stop this system completely. The Gas is not going to go anywhere. It will still be there when we can do it safely.

[realityCheckInTheMail]

11:53 PM on 07/20/2011

".we­ll sorry to tell you but Fracking is for Natural Gas, and very few vehicles in this Country run on Natural Gas."

That statement right there couldn't be more wrong. Fracking was developed by the oil industry, for oil.

High volume shale fracking is about 5-10 years old. It was originally developed for natural gas. However, it reduces oil imports in at least three prominent ways.

1. Plays like the Bakken shale produce mostly oil.
2. Even areas that are thought of as "shale gas", like the Marcellus and Barnett, produce some liquid products that can serve as oil substitutes for many processes.
3. Oil furnaces for heating can be replaces by natural gas furnaces or electrical heat pumps.

Since you don't know what fracking is for and how it contributes to our economy, it's safe to say you don't know what the trade offs are with this technology, and don't really have an informed opinion.

[pita143]

07:17 AM on 07/21/2011

I know what fracking is, I know what fracking does, and I have seen the damage caused by these drilling companies.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/pennsylvania_residents_tell_ep.html

Don't give me those BS lines from the Drilling companies. That is the very same garbage that the Deep Horizon told people that their drilling was perfectly safe. Fracking is not safe and there are PROVEN disastrous effects to the Water Table at places that fracking has occurred.

It is NOT SAFE.

[WESmith]

09:04 PM on 07/20/2011

"Beyond the worries surrounding extraction via fracking, reports have also questioned the cost and availability of usable materials"
Fracking isn't a form of extraction. Does anybody actually know what fracking is? Does anybody know that gas companies don't frack? Does anybody care that drilling and completing any type of well is where we need to improve regulations? Saying that wells are Ok unless they are fracked is like saying a bone sticking out of your leg is no problem as long as you don't walk on it. This is totally political Rhetoric.

[pita143]

07:29 AM on 07/21/2011

I really do hate people that lie on this site.

What would you call the method? You inject MILLIONS of gallons of water into the ground mixed with a Toxic soup of chemicals that action FRACTURES the rock layers allowing the Natural Gas to mix with the Toxic Soup and then it is extracted to the surface.

The problem is less than 85% of that Toxic Fracking Soup ends up coming OUT of the ground. The rest stays in the ground and can mix with the Water Table and effect drinking water for untold number of people.

http://www.arabianoilandgas.com/article-9086-new-york-times-us-shale-a-giant-ponzi-scheme/2/

The method as it is done today, is totally unsafe. Why do you think that there is a thing called the halliburton exemption? Halliburton was the leading drilling company doing this type of drilling and they got the Bush White House to write in the 2005 energy bill an exemption for Fracking from the Clean Water Act.

Maybe you can explain to us all why would a drilling company need an exemption from the Clean Water Act if they were not afraid of damaging the water table?

[FrankLuchan]

08:23 PM on 07/20/2011

The Obama Administration and his crony Lisa "Hack" Jackson at the EPA HATE US produced natural gas.

Why?

US produced Natural Gas creates JOBS here in the US.

US Produced Natural Gas DRAMATICALLY lowers the requirements to import OIL from Barry's friends in the middle east and Venezuela.

US produced Natural Gas really hurts Barry’s abilities to 'necessarily skyrocket' the cost of energy.

Oh, and did I mention that US produced natural gas CREATES JOBS here in the US. Particularly manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs which rely heavily on CHEAP ENERGY (like they have in China).

Obama HATES jobs. Really HATES them.

Jobs make the Democrat run welfare state kind of unimportant. And we know how Democrats LOVE the welfare state.

[realityCheckInTheMail]

11:55 PM on 07/20/2011

Your post would be accurate if you replaced "Obama administration" with "the environmental movement".

Give credit where credit is due. Obama has stuck by shale gas and nuclear power, despite the hysteria and rhetoric.

Otherwise, I tend to agree with you.

[Brer Orabbit]

07:53 PM on 07/20/2011

Breaking News: Environmentalists force EPA to ban human flatulence. Steep fines imposed in the belt-way for breaking wind in public. Legislatures draft new enforcement regulations that apply to the private sector. HHS approves waivers for all Federal, State and local public employees. Developing. . . . .