ShareThis Page
News

Federal dollars fueled natural gas boom

| Monday, Sept. 24, 2012, 12:17 a.m.

It sounds like a free-market success story: a natural gas boom created by drilling company innovation, delivering a vast new source of cheap energy without the government subsidies that solar and wind power demand.

“The free market has worked its magic,” industry group Barnett Shale Energy Education Council exclaimed over the summer.

The boom happened “away from the greedy grasp of Washington,” the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, wrote this year.

But those who helped pioneer the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, recall a different path. Over three decades, from the shale fields of Texas and Wyoming to the Marcellus in Pennsylvania, the federal government contributed more than $100 million in research to develop fracking, and billions more in tax breaks.

Those industry pioneers say their effort shows the government should back research into future sources of energy — for decades, if need be. For all its success now, many people in the oil and gas industry once thought shale gas was a waste of time.

“There's no point in mincing words. Some people thought it was stupid,” said Dan Steward, a geologist who began working with the Texas natural gas firm Mitchell Energy in 1981. Steward estimated that in the early years, “probably 90 percent of the people” in the firm didn't believe shale gas would be profitable.

Shale is a rock formation thousands of feet underground. Among its largest U.S. deposits are the Marcellus shale, under parts of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia, and the Barnett shale in north Texas. Geologists knew shale contained gas, but for more than 100 years the industry focused on shallower reserves. With fracking, large volumes of water, along with sand and hazardous chemicals, are injected underground to break rock apart and free the gas.

In 1975, the Department of Energy began funding research into fracking and horizontal drilling, in which wells go down and then sideways for thousands of feet.

It took more than 20 years to perfect the process.

Alex Crawley, a former Department of Energy employee, recalled that some early tests were spectacular — in a bad way.

A test of fracking explosives in Morgantown, W.Va., “blew the pipe out of the well about 600 feet high” in the 1970s, Crawley said. Luckily, no one was killed. He added that a 1975 test well in Wyoming “produced a lot of water.”

Steward recalled that Mitchell Energy didn't cover the cost of fracking on shale tests until the 36th well was drilled.

“There's not a lot of companies that would stay with something this long. Most companies would have given up,” he said, crediting founder George Mitchell as a visionary who got support from the government at key points.

The natural gas and petroleum industries accounted for about $2.8 billion in federal energy subsidies in the 2010 fiscal year, while $14.7 billion went to renewable energies, the Department of Energy found. The figures include direct expenditures and tax credits.

Congress passed a huge tax break in 1980 specifically to encourage unconventional natural gas drilling, noted Alex Trembath, a researcher at the Breakthrough Institute, a California nonprofit that supports new ways of thinking about energy and the environment. Trembath said that the Department of Energy spent about $137 million in gas research over three decades, and the federal tax credit for drillers amounted to $10 billion between 1980 and 2002.

The work wasn't all industry or all government, but both.

One step at a time, the problems of shale drilling were solved. Crawley said Energy Department researchers processed drilling data on supercomputers at a federal lab. Later, technology initially used to track sounds of Russian submarines during the Cold War was repurposed to help the industry use sound to get a 3-D picture of shale deposits and track exactly where a drill bit was, thousands of feet underground.

Renewable energy has had similar fits and starts, plagued by the costs and complexities of developing technology.

President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney tout the benefits of shale gas but differ over the government's role in subsidizing energy research. Obama has suggested continued funding for renewable energy but eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies for oil and gas companies. Romney calls that an unhealthy obsession with green jobs and vows to cut wind power subsidies, yet keep federal support for ethanol.

The fracking pioneers point out that it's impossible to predict how and when research will pay off.

“It wouldn't be research if you already knew that it was going to be effective,” Crawley said.

Terry Engelder, a Penn State University geologist known for his enthusiastic support for gas drilling, said the story of how shale gas went from longshot to head of the pack — and how long that took — shows that serious support for renewable energy research makes sense, too.

“These renewables have a huge upside,” Engelder said. “In my view, the subsidies are really very appropriate.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me