Interesting read and refreshingly even perspective. Sounds like they are taking a science-based, no nonsense approach to evaluating fracking risk, which is mostly around well completion and proper handling of chemicals and produced water at the surface. Yes, he doesn't mention induced seismicity, but that is primarily related to reinjection of wastewater and not the fracking process itself. In terms of GHGs, my view is that natural gas is a perfect bridge fuel to get us through the time that alternative energy sources are being further developed and integrated. It is much cleaner and less carbon intensive than oil or coal. I think developing unconventional gas resources, if done properly, can be huge step in the right direction for our energy future.
Published by Mike Tietze, PG, CHG, CEG, Principal Engineering Geologist at Jacobson James & Associates
Interesting read and refreshingly even perspective. Sounds like they are taking a science-based, no nonsense approach to evaluating fracking risk, which is mostly around well completion and proper handling of chemicals and produced water at the surface. Yes, he doesn't mention induced seismicity, but that is primarily related to reinjection of wastewater and not the fracking process itself. In terms of GHGs, my view is that natural gas is a perfect bridge fuel to get us through the time that alternative energy sources are being further developed and integrated. It is much cleaner and less carbon intensive than oil or coal. I think developing unconventional gas resources, if done properly, can be huge step in the right direction for our energy future.