There has been plenty of talk lately about hydrofracking in the Finger Lakes.  Drive down the road and you’ll see No Frack signs sprinkled about, then turn on the radio or TV, and you’ll hear how it’s the answer to all our energy problems.  A cursory Google search turns up more information than you’ll ever want to read, but it all seems to be agenda-tainted.  How is one to sort it all out?  I attended a seminar by Cornell University’s Dr. Anthony Ingraffea this week that really helped me decide exactly how I feel about the whole issue.  It’s worth stating that Tony is a doctor of engineering, not a scientist, which in my opinion lends some objectivity to this highly emotional debate.  So for what it’s worth, here are my thoughts:

1.  Hydrofracking works. This is not new technology, it’s just new to New York.  Others can explain the process more eloquently than I, so check out this link for the basics.  That being said, if our objective in the US is to gain energy independence, every cubic foot of natural gas produced here translates to less foreign energy importation.  That’s a good thing.  The problem is that from an environmental standpoint, we have some things to think about.  Let me say first off, that I am not an environmentalist.  I do, however, think that the natural beauty and bounty of the Finger Lakes is a treasure  I would not be willing to put at risk.  Risks notwithstanding, hydrofracking is a viable process by which to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale beneath us.

2.  American Ingenuity. It’s an overused phrase, but we overuse it because it’s real.  There is not a single con on the list that could not be addressed, and solved by our national body of scientists and engineers.  We simply need to do so.  A major con at this point is the issue of water.  Hydrofracking requires a large volume of water – the number tossed around lately is around five million gallons per well.  Compared to the volume flowing over Niagara Falls per hour, that’s a small number.  Compared to what’s in your bathtub, that’s a large number.  Regardless, the water used in the fracking process is treated with chemicals in specific concentrations at different stages.  That means the waste water coming out is not necessarily recyclable for use in the next well.  It is also not suitable for general disposal.  It has to be either stored in tanks, or treated at a wastewater disposal facility.  We need to figure this one out – supply, disposal and treatment are a big question mark at this point.

I should also note that the Finger-Lakes-proper is not a hot spot for hydrofracking right now.  Check out this map (borrowed from here):

The main activity for proposed drilling (known as the “Fairway”) is in Marcellus Shale at depths that skirt the 3000 line on the map – deep Southern Tier counties, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and a piece of Maryland.  Seneca Lake is more or less on the fringe, and we are more likely to see infrastructure effects than we are actual wells.  We’ve got less shale, but more water.  So to sum up the bullet point, why not let Pennsylvania figure out what works and what doesn’t? The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will have a better understanding of how to properly write its regulations by learning from the successes and failures of our southern neighbors.

3.  Timing is everything. The estimates of the total volume of natural gas within the shale formations are just that:  estimates.  No one can say with any certainty exactly how much gas there is, although the estimates seem to be getting larger and larger.  Dr. Ingraffea presented the latest estimate, which is around 500 trillion cubic feet of gas, of which around 10% is feasibly extractable.  Based on our national consumption rate of natural gas (around 24 trillion cubic feet per year), this volume will not provide long term energy independence for the US.  The volume is significant, however, and so are the dollars, so the issue of timing comes into play.  Gas prices are relatively inexpensive and supply is relatively plentiful at this time.  Why rush into production when it’s not necessary?  Better to wait until the process has been refined, the safety improved, the regulations studied and implemented, and demand increases against the supply.  In short, get our ducks in a row now, so that if in the future hydrofracking becomes more environmentally palatable and economically necessary – we’ll be ready.

The best thing to do right now, in my opinion, is to keep the conversation active.  The more we talk about this, the better we’ll all understand it.  The sooner we quell the rumors of toxic radioactivity and earthquakes the better – progress and hysteria don’t mix.  That’s my two cents.  Let’s hear what you’ve got to say.