graphic by Mikenorton (Wikimedia Commons)

Hydraulic fracturing, a controversial method of extracting natural gas deposits from under shale, has been heralded by the International Energy Agency as ushering in the Earth’s ‘golden age’ for gas.

So perhaps oil is going to peak, but natural gas has yet to properly boom. Gas does produce less CO2 emissions than oil (but more methane) and is cleaner than coal, but it still emits and pollutes more than renewables.

Hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ as it is often called, has a host of other concerns including massive water use, contamination of ground water with chemicals as well as air pollution. It’s even been linked to earthquakes.

It’s no mystery then why environmental campaigners are voicing their disapproval of the IEA report.

But the IEA also warns that the development of renewables energy sources could fall to the wayside due to the availability of natural gas.

From the Guardian:

Renewable energy may be the victim of cheap gas prices if governments do not stick to their renewable support schemes.

Fatih Birol, chief economist, IEA

According to Birol we need renewables as the golden age of gas is not synonymous with the golden age of climate.

In the recession-hit US state of Ohio, residents are grappling with the uncertainties of the fracking boom. How will it impact human health when the number of hydraulic fracturing gas wells increases by 30 fold within the next 3 years?

Read more about that in Nature.

Meanwhile South Africa seems to be favoring a massive telescope project over gas exploration in its Northern Cape province. The project covers hundreds of kilometers, which cannot be disturbed by things like radio waves, air traffic or even trees. It also covers an area believed to be rich in shale gas deposits. Will the telescopes and the search for extra terrestrial life supersede gas exploration? In the long run who knows, but for the moment astronomy seems to be winning.

Read more from Reuters.

graphic credit: darthpedrius (Flickr CC)

The chairman of the UK’s environment agency, Lord Smith, has voiced public support for the controversial natural gas and petroleum technique known as hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ with the argument that it will provide a secure and domestic source of energy.

Fracking was linked to minor earthquakes when shale gas extraction was tried in the area around Blackpool, England. There are also concerns about groundwater contamination, methane leaks and the industrialization of the countryside, as has been experienced in large parts of the US, including government protected, publicly owned lands.

From The Ecologist:

Lord Smith’s backing follows pressure on the UK to [support] the extraction of shale gas. Former BP chief Lord Browne said last month that the Government should not ‘get in the way’ of shale gas companies such as Cuadrilla Resources, of which he is now a director. The British Geological Survey (BGS) estimate the UK could become one of the world’s biggest shale gas producers.

Lord Smith did qualify his support by stating that fracking must be done safely and effectively, meaning that methane isn’t released into atmosphere or groundwater contaminated.

Well, duh. I mean, this is England, not the Wild West of the US of A. It’s like with nuclear power, which the Environment chief is also backing. The threat of climate change seems to open doors to certain industries. But despite ‘orders’ from former environment chief Michael Meacher MP for officials to identify and clean up nuclear waste sites back in 1997, it simply did not happen.

So why should anyone believe in further government safeguards against nuclear or fracking-related issues?

Read more on Lord Smiths statements on BBC News.

photo by Diana Beato (VideoPhotoholic on Flickr CC)

Natural gas firms that engage in hydraulic fracturing are hiding risks from landowners, according to a report by the Environmental Working Group.

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly called ‘fracking’, is the practice of extracting natural gas from shale rock by drilling, planting explosives, and pumping in large amounts of water and chemicals to open up gas deposits.

Fracking has been linked to the contamination of water supplies with toxic and cancer causing chemicals and even to earthquakes, making the practice controversial throughout the globe.

These landowners who were left in the dark about drilling risks are likely just the tip of the iceberg. Industry documents, regulators and lawyers all indicate that there may be thousands of landowners who unknowingly put their water, homes and health at risk by signing natural gas leases. It’s time to level the playing field so that landowners know the facts about drilling before they sign a lease.

­–Environmental Working Group senior counsel Dusty Horwitt

The advantages of fracking are clear: a domestic source of natural gas, which produces less greenhouse gases than coal or oil. But the risks and disadvantages of hydraulic fracturing must be determined and disclosed, especially to those who are most at risk – the very people that live on the land where fracking takes place.

In the US State of Wyoming, the EPA conducted a three-year study, which confirmed that fracking risks contaminating water supplies.

From Public Radio International:

They tested water wells in a total of 42 homes and found varying degrees of pretty serious contamination that could or could not match the drilling industry, but certainly didn’t rule it out. They did rule out other factors like agricultural pollution.

–Abrahm Lustgarten, reporter for Pro Publica

Read more in the Los Angeles Times

photo by Owen Crowley (Flickr CC)

Hydraulic fracturing is the controversial practice of extracting natural gas from shale rock by drilling, planting explosives and then pumping vast amounts of water and chemicals into the rock to open up gas deposits.

Commonly referred to as ‘fracking’, domestic hydraulic fracturing is being touted by governments and fossil fuel corporations in several countries as being cheaper, safer and more climate-friendly than oil or coal extraction, as well as less dependent on the instability of international markets and political situations than other fossil fuels.

But fracking is not without its environmental or human health concerns.

From BBC News:

Much of the water used in fracking is collected from the well and processed, but there are concerns that potentially carcinogenic chemicals can sometimes escape and find their way into drinking water sources. Some American householders also claim that shale gas leaking into their drinking supply causes tap water to ignite.

Though CO2 emissions from natural gas are lower than from coal and oil, opponents worry that the development of renewable energy technology and infrastructure is suffering in favor of fracking.

There have been protests in Blackpool, England against fracking and opposition from local residents regarding proposed fracking sites in Western Australia. Unease over the safety of the practice has also bolstered opposition in Canada, where exploration and eventual drilling are planned for exploiting the shale gas deposits in the province of New Brunswick.

For more on how increased regulation of the technique and the findings of a report on hydraulic fracturing by the United States Secretary of Energy Advisory Board could affect the practice in Canada, see this article in New Brunswick’s Telegraph-Journal.

Also check out this article in the San Francisco Chronicle (available free online by Tuesday) on how the U.S. state of California is debating fracking.