The television network HBO is airing a documentary, "Gasland" produced by Josh Fox, a filmmaker and artist, who decided to investigate shale gas drilling after being offered a lease for mineral rights on land owned by his family. This film is, to say the least, critical of the process and people involved in gas exploration and development.

Now, with the devastation (probably preventable) in the Gulf of Mexico, now is not a popular time to defend hydrocarbon development, but I thought I would comment on this one (while remaining outraged at BP and its contractors) because it preys on the scientific illiteracy so prevalent among Americans. 

The site Energy in Depth (published by a consortium of smaller US natural gas producers) has published a critique of the Fox documentary that goes after Mr. Fox's apparently rather artistic use of facts in the movie.The blog "Flowback: Thoughts on Energy and Natural Gas" by Rita McConnell also takes on the preying on scientific illiteracy in a recent post and some before that. 

I don't subscribe to HBO and have not seen it myself. However, a visit to the Gasland movie website puts much doubt in my heart about the use of my time if I did watch the movie. For example, there are a lot of slogans ("exempted 2005" etc.). The explanation of "fracking" (hydrofracturing) is completely absurd. The graphic in their demonstration seems to correctly shows the placement of a casing through a drinking water aquifer (portrayed as a pool of water). The hole is drilled, completed apparently just under the aquifer. Then the frac process begins. It is depicted as creating great vertical cracks reaching the aquifer (which would be 2000-5000 ft above the production horizon), and frac solution also is released from the cemented casing. All is lost of course. The thrust of Fox's plot seems to be that during the Bush administration, rules to restrain gas development were erased, Halliburton ("hiss!") then invented some kind of nuclear hydrofracturing, and this is being applied without restraint, using hundreds of deadly chemicals that are pumped into ground water supplies. 

First, gas and oil drilling on land does not involve the environmental risks posed by drilling in 5000-ft-deep sea water. The most damage done by oil drilling was done in its first few decades before invention of the blowout preventer (find and view Giant for example). Much "Halliburton" technology was developed by Baroid and others before corporate acquisition by the company villified for its role in Iraq and Katrina problems. Drilling is conducted using rotating drill bits, pipes and (mostly) clay solutions with some polymers (essentially soap). Air as a circulating fluid is increasingly used (air, water, "soap"). Hydrofracturing is conducted using water, sand, and some chemicals in the 0.1-1-percent range to increase interaction with shale and to reduce surface tension between water and sand (to increase the fluid feed rate). Honestly, look at your dishwashing detergent or shampoo and conditioner for the types of chemicals used, and if you have power washed with chemicals, you have a sense of the chemical exposure risk. Some biocides are used (most typically glutaraldehyde). Glutaraldehyde poses some toxicity risk (mostly to the applicators, who should be wearing respirators and protective gear). However, biocides, acid and "soap" (polyacrylamide) are diluted at a proportion of < 1 gal per 1000 gal of water before injection. These proportions are typical of those used in potable water well cleaning.

Here is a discussion of the list of chemicals compiled by the Pennsylvania DEP . Risk to the environment is mitigated by the "being injected into tight rocks 8000 ft into the earth" part, and of course, dilution and chemical breakdown in situ.

Oil and gas drilling today case and cement off water supplies and other sensitive formations and are (rather) well-regulated (MMR failures in the Gulf notwithstanding). Most regulation is at the state level. Drilling on land involves drastically reduced operating risks and ability to respond to undesirable conditions (equipment failure etc) compared to the deep sea problems we are experiencing at present -- problems caused by management decisions to pinch pennies, mind you, not the technology being employed.

Marcellus and other deep shale gas "plays" require hydrofracturing. Because the formations are very tight, when gas is released, a large portion of the "frac" water rebounds back up the hole with the gas. Frac return water contains fluids from the formation as well as additives. Formation fluid is high in total dissolved solids and hydrocarbons and must be controlled. This has not always been successful. The volumes can be huge. For both economic and environmental reasons, efforts are being made to recycle this water for further hydrofracturing.  This effort is underway and involves a number of creative efforts. Remember - the economics drive the producers. It costs a lot to store, transport and treat water. They will achieve recycling. 

If you are approached about leasing land for hydrocarbon production, go into the process with open eyes. Learn the process, get to know your rights and what you can expect. Get your water supply and surface water (creeks, ponds, etc.) tested and document results. Retain rights to control fluid management on your land. If your neighbors will be leasing, test to protect yourself. Document everything. We would encourage producers to do the same. 

We should view large, complex hydrocarbon production activities (and similar projects such as CO2 sequestration and nuclear waste storage) critically, but objectively and based on science, not ignorance. However, Gasland (based on their web site) promises no such analysis.

Summary of a study offrac treatment effects .

A primer on modern shale gas drilling and development technology produced by the Ground Water Protection Council.

If we want to reduce dependency on these types of activities, let's be conserving. 

See also our commentary on ignorance and carbon dioxide sequestration.

If we can help you with your testing, let us know, but don't expect a biased result for any agenda.