from conventional sources.
Figure 2.6 History of natural gas production from New York.
Figure 2.6a History of oil production in New York (from EIA, 2018).
While oil and natural gas opportunities in New York remain bright, interest is growing regarding other subsurface resources in the State, such as geothermal energy, compressed air energy storage in geologic settings, and CO2 sequestration in geologic formations to address concerns around climate change. The links between these rest on a basic understanding of the State’s geology and evolving applications of technologies and practices originally associated with oil and gas exploration and production. The Challenges Ahead The current pace and scale of natural gas development in New York presents challenges for all stakeholders: private landowners, exploration and production companies, State and local government, and the public, to protect the environment and support the infrastructure and resources of local communities. Consequently, New York State government has the obligation to manage natural resources, protect environmental quality and improve public health while facilitating the flow of benefits from environmentally sound natural gas and oil development. To accomplish this mandate, the State of New York requires that development proceed with protection of the environment and the public interest as the primary focus. During the Obama era, the resurgence of natural gas and oil development in New York was facilitated by proactive state agencies that ensure environmentally responsible development and protect the interests of all stakeholders, and by exploration and production companies that engage the community and are responsive to public concerns. However, by in large, these measures meant conventional definition of sustainability and illogical attachment to excessive regulations. With President Trump in Office, changes have taken place and the debate over deregulation has resurfaced.
Not unexpectedly, President Trump’s policies have been severely criticized by the ‘left’. Recently, Lipton et al. (2018) critiqued the most ‘negative’ aspects of President Trump’s policies. The overwhelming theme behind federal government moves has been that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, which between them regulate much of the intersection between the environment and the economy, have compromised environmental integrity. It is alleged that the rule changes have touched nearly every aspect of environmental protection, including air pollution caused by power plants and the oil and gas industry, water pollution caused by coal mines, and toxic chemicals and pesticides used by farmers nationwide. As Islam and Khan (2019) pointed out, such criticisms are premised on the assumption that Carbon-based energy sources are inherently unsustainable whereas any non-carbon energy sources are sustainable/renewable. In this narrative, coal has become the central item of debate. While President Obama and his administration viewed coal as the primary culprit behind climate change, Trump administration has defended the coal industry and promoted economic strategies that include coal in all its applications, including coal-burning power plants.
During the post financial collapse era of 2008 onward, tremendous progress has been made in USA, mainly in areas of unconventional oil and gas production. Central to this boost is the usage of massive fracturing, using horizontal wells and multilaterals. Interestingly, the fracking technology is nothing new. Many decades ago, such technologies have been in place. However, previously, natural materials such as water and sand were used. Today, such materials have been replaced with synthetic polymeric fluids and synthetic proppants (Picture 2.2).
Picture 2.2 shows how these artificial proppants with cylindrical shape are claimed to create better fractures. Figure 2.7 demonstrates that sands have the worst fracture efficiency, while the rod-shaped proppants have the highest efficiency. In this process, material cost of fracturing has skyrocketed and accounts for bulk of the fracturing scheme. The same can be said about fracturing fluid. It turns out water is not conducive to creating fractures in shale formations. In 1976, the US government started the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public–private hydraulic fracturing pilot demonstration projects. During the same period, the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That was the beginning of fracturing shale formations that gave boost in gas production throughout late 1970s and 1980s. In 1997, based on earlier techniques used by Union Pacific Resources, now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Mitchell Energy, now part of Devon Energy, developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as “slickwater fracturing” that involves adding chemicals to water thereby allowing increase to the fluid flow, which made the shale gas extraction economical. These chemicals are both expensive and toxic to the environment.
Picture 2.2 Typical proppants, used during fracturing.
Figure 2.7 Effect of proppant geometry on fracturing efficiency.
The fracturing fluid varies in composition depending on the type of fracturing used, the conditions of the specific well being fractured, and the water characteristics. A typical fracture treatment uses between 3 and 12 additive chemicals. A typical fracturing operation involves the following chemicals:
Acids: hydrochloric acid (for carbonate cements) or acetic acid (for silicate cement) is used in the prefracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.
Sodium chloride: delays breakdown of the gel polymer chains.
Polyacrylamide and other friction reducers: reduces turbulence (lower Reynold’s number), while increasing proppant transport in the tubing or drill pipe.
Ethylene glycol: prevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.
Borate salts: thermal stabilizers that maintain fluid viscosity under high temperature conditions.
Sodium and potassium carbonates: used for maintaining effectiveness of cross-linkers that stabilize the polymer.
Glutaraldehyde: used as disinfectant of the water to prevent bacterial growth and subsequent biodegradation of the fluid.
Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents: increases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver more efficiently the proppant into the formation.
Citric acid: used for corrosion prevention as it is a milder form for corrosion inhibitors.
Isopropanol: increases the viscosity of the fracturing fluid.
The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol. New generation of chemicals include: Conventional linear gels
