Article below is from Pittsburgh Post.Gazette Sunday 3 January 2010.
Sunday Forum: End the free ride for shale drillers
Before we jump on the natural-gas bandwagon, we should regulate the industry as tightly as we regulate nuclear power, advises nuclear engineer FORREST J. REMICK
Sunday, January 03, 2010
As more and more gas wells are drilled in the Marcellus Shale, pundits have been quick to claim they represent a revolution in energy production. Some even have declared there no longer is a need for other alternative sources to supply electricity.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If ever there was a time for an honest reassessment of government energy policy, it's now. And what that reassessment would conclude is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should regulate natural-gas drilling -- otherwise we run a considerable risk to public health and safety from contaminated drinking water and dangerous airborne emissions, including toxic chemicals like benzene.
I know my prescription doesn't square with the views of many who wish to maintain an essentially free ride for natural gas. But a half-century of working on energy policy issues as an engineer and a regulator has left me convinced that -- with the health and safety of millions of people at stake -- the temptation to ignore the risks of natural-gas drilling on a massive scale and of emissions from natural-gas facilities could be a calamitous mistake.
Natural gas has many virtues as a fuel compared to coal or oil, and its share of energy must and certainly will grow in the years ahead. The process of extracting natural gas, however, is not risk free.
Known as hydraulic fracturing, it involves injecting into the ground a combination of water, sand and chemicals under high pressure to break down shale formations and unlock deposits of gas. When hydraulic fracturing is combined with horizontal drilling, reserves previously thought inaccessible are now recoverable, which is a significant benefit.
However, many families, communities and local governments in Pennsylvania, New York, Colorado and Texas are understandably upset that their health and safety has been compromised by an exemption for hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act -- an exemption that allows companies to withhold disclosure of the chemicals they use. Hydraulic fracturing usually is done carefully but it has been involved in scores of cases of polluted drinking-water supplies around the country.
A great deal of liquid is used in hydraulic fracturing and much of it comes back up out of a well with the natural gas. Currently there are no state-mandated procedures in Pennsylvania for natural-gas companies to dispose of the "fracking" liquid after it surfaces. Producers are required only to detail how they plan to dispose of the liquid wastes.
With about 8,000 permits for shale-gas drilling issued in Pennsylvania last year and 40,000 new permits anticipated in the next few years, is there any doubt that there are simply too many points at which contaminated water could despoil individual or municipal water supplies?
The rapid growth of shale-gas drilling can create other environmental problems, too. In Texas, tests have shown high concentrations of benzene and other toxic chemicals in the air near drilling sites and related facilities in the Barnett Shale, raising questions about the adequacy of the permitting process and the enforcement of state environmental regulations.
Yet many are so wrapped up in the advantages of burning natural gas compared to coal or oil that they ignore the fact that it pollutes the air and water.
A 1,000-megawatt natural-gas power plant each day releases about five tons of sulfur dioxides, 21 tons of nitrogen oxides, 1.6 tons of carbon monoxide and 0.9 tons of particulates. Natural-gas plants in the United States, even though they burn the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel, emit more than 350 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. In contrast, nuclear plants release none of these pollutants.
Compared to nuclear power -- which is tightly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- natural gas has enjoyed a free ride with respect to protection of the environment and public health and safety.
Nuclear power plants require larger capital investments than comparable gas plants in part because nuclear plants must maintain costly systems to protect the environment from radiation. If all power plants, including natural-gas plants and drilling rigs, were similarly required to sequester the pollutants they produce, their capital costs would be considerably higher.
Small wonder that ExxonMobil is sufficiently concerned about possible federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing that its $31 billion merger agreement with natural-gas producer XTO allows the company to back out of the deal if Congress makes the process illegal or "commercially impracticable."
Inadequate oversight, not over-regulation, has caused these problems for natural gas. The emphasis should be on creating a level regulatory regime to establish consistency of requirements, stability of implementation and increased protection and confidence of the public. Then a determination can be made as to how best to invest in clean energy sources for America's future.
Forrest J. Remick is professor of nuclear engineering emeritus and associate vice president for research emeritus at Penn State University and a retired commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (fjr1@psu.edu).

FYI from Dee: Exposure to low levels of benzene can cause dizziness, drowsiness, headaches, confusion, tremors, rapid heart beat, and unconsciousness. Long-term exposure to benzene can damage the bone marrow and lead to blood problems like anemia and leukemia. It also weakens the immune system and targets organs such as the kidneys, lung, liver, and brain. High levels of exposure can lead to death.