Drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas (Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratories)
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
Transcript
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
For decades, drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas.
Environmental groups believe the chemicals are contaminating wells and aquifers here in the western U.S. Now gas drilling is moving east to places closer to cities such as Philadelphia and New York.
Several Democratic Members of Congress have introduced legislation to repeal the exemption in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Randy Udall is a co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA, an environmental group. He says as more gas is found, people in the East can expect more drilling.
“For better or worse, whether you like it or not, as time goes on, were going to be drilling in places where people are living.”
The oil and natural gas industry says the chemicals they force into the ground are “trade secrets.” They say the process is safe.
The richest oil shale deposits lie in
the Piceance Basin, which runs northwest of the town of Rifle,
Colorado. The bands of dark grey along the edge of this snow-
capped ridge are oil shale. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
In the future, keeping your gas tank full could make disputes over water in the American
West a lot worse. It’s because energy companies hope to develop the oil shale industry.
Getting oil from shale requires lots of water, and the richest oil shale deposits happen to be
in the dry state of Colorado. Shawn Allee headed there to see why a fight over water and
oil could be in the works:
Transcript
In the future, keeping your gas tank full could make disputes over water in the American
West a lot worse. It’s because energy companies hope to develop the oil shale industry.
Getting oil from shale requires lots of water, and the richest oil shale deposits happen to be
in the dry state of Colorado. Shawn Allee headed there to see why a fight over water and
oil could be in the works:
Oil companies have their eyes on vast oil shale deposits in western Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming.
The federal government says companies could pull 800 billion barrels of oil out of that shale.
That’s about three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
Oil shale’s an impressive resource but it depends on water and there’s not much available
there.
How much would an oil shale industry need?
Shell Oil PR guy Tracy Boyd says the simple answer is that it will likely take his company
three barrels of water to extract one barrel of oil.
It’s because oil shale doesn’t really have oil in it – it’s got something called kerogen.
“You can heat this kerogen up. If you do it really slow, which we do for about 3.5 –
4 years, by putting heaters down in the rock formation, (you) produce a crude-oil
like material but with a little processing this is the first product we get out of it
which basically transportation fuels.”
Heating the ground require loads of electricity from new power plants and generators, and
they’d be cooled by water.
Oil companies are just experimenting with shale right now, but they’re securing rights to
water just in case.
Shell’s latest water claim is on Colorado’s Yampa River.
When Shell filed its court papers – some town governments warned they might fight the
claim.
One of these towns was Parker – a Denver suburb hundreds of miles east of the oil shale
region.
Frank Jaeger runs Parker’s water district.
Jaeger says, like other Colorado cities, Parker plans to expand.
“We know approximately what our numbers are and it will be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 150,000 people. In order to assure 150,000 people for another
150 years from now, I have to be proactive, I have to be at the front of the line for
the next drop of water available in the State of Colorado.”
Oil shale developers and cities across Colorado are set to fight over the water they might
need for the future, but some feel oil companies already have an edge.
“They’re actually one step ahead of the game.”
David Ableson is with Western Resource Advocates, an environmental group.
Ableson says energy companies tried developing oil shale several times in the last century.
They failed, but each time, they bought more water rights – just in case.
Now, they’ve got loads of water rights – and if the industry takes off, they’ll use them.
That could stop cities like Denver and its suburbs from getting water they hoped to have for
new homes and businesses.
Ableson says this isn’t just a Colorado fight, though.
He says some congressmen sell the idea of oil shale as an energy source the whole country
can depend on – even though its future could get tied up in Colorado water courts.
“And so, folks who are looking at this issue who do not live in CO, UT, or WY, need
to understand that when an elected official says, “this can solve our energy woes,”
that it’s actually a far more complicated situation than that and if there are severe
water impacts, that makes it much less likely that you could develop that
resource.”
The energy industry claims the concern over water is overblown – they say they just might
not need all that much water.
Ableson says that’s only true if oil shale fails. But if it succeeds, and we fill up on oil shale
gasoline – he predicts some towns or industries in the West will be left dry.
Badin Mayor Jim Harrison stands on the steps of town hall. Alcoa’s old smelter looms behind. Alcoa once employed half the population of Badin, but the smelter closed in 2002. (Photo by Julie Rose)
Mark Gross and Gene Ellis on a bridge over the Yadkin River at the Narrows Dam. Gross is technical manager for the dam. Ellis is Licensing and Operating Manager for Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (Photo by Julie Rose)
The Narrows Dam holds back the Yadkin River to create Badin Lake. It is the largest of Alcoa’s four hydropower dams on the river. (Photo by Julie Rose)
In the dry American West, folks have been
duking it out over water for centuries.
But water shortages are new to the Southeast.
Many once thought the rivers would flow
forever. Now, North Carolina is emerging
from the worst drought in over a hundred
years. Julie Rose reports on a power
struggle has erupted over one of its
rivers:
Transcript
In the dry American West, folks have been
duking it out over water for centuries.
But water shortages are new to the Southeast.
Many once thought the rivers would flow
forever. Now, North Carolina is emerging
from the worst drought in over a hundred
years. Julie Rose reports on a power
struggle has erupted over one of its
rivers:
(sound of inside a truck)
From a one-lane road way above the Yadkin River, the trees are so thick you can just see
the water. It looks so tranquil that the Narrows Dam is a bit of a shock when you turn the
bend.
Rose: “Whoa, this thing’s huge.”
Ellis: “Yeah.” (chuckles)
(sound of climbing out of the truck)
I’m with Gene Ellis, who’s the head of Alcoa Power Generating.
(sound of water falling.)
For nearly 100 years, the aluminum company has owned and operated four dams on one
of North Carolina’s largest rivers. Now Alcoa is trying to renew that hydropower license
for 50 more years. But the Governor of North Carolina wants Alcoa’s dams for herself –
or rather for the people of North Carolina.
The federal law that governs America’s rivers does allow for a takeover, but it’s never
been done. And Alcoa’s Gene Ellis says it’s something he’d expect of a dictator.
“Alcoa’s only experience with the socialization or the nationalization of a plant was
in Venezuela during the leadership of Hugo Chavez.”
Ellis says the takeover attempt violates Alcoa’s property rights. Trouble is that while
Alcoa owns the dams, the people of North Carolina own the river. Alcoa’s basically a
tenant.
And North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue says it’s time to end the lease.
“We need to be sure that the water sources that we are allowing to be controlled – if
you will – by a private industry, produces something for North Carolina.”
Something like jobs, says Perdue, which is why Alcoa built the dams in the first place.
They used to power an aluminum smelter that was the main employer in the region.
In 2002, Alcoa closed the smelter, but still makes millions off the dams. It sells the
hydropower wholesale. Alcoa continues to pay taxes – and still offers free swimming
and fishing on the lakes – but the Governor says that’s not enough to deserve 50 more
years of control on the river.
Officials from at least seven counties agree. As do many residents, like Roger Dick.
“The state needs to be in control. We do not need to be, as citizens, having to go ask
a global company for how we will use our water.”
Ironically, Alcoa’s biggest support comes from towns on the four lakes it manages.
Especially Badin – where you can see the huge, empty smelter from the steps of the
mayor’s office.
Rose: “Did you work there?”
Harrison “Yes. 30 some years. That was our only industry and we’ve lost our heart
when we lost Alcoa.”
And yet, Badin Mayor Jim Harrison says-
“I would rather trust who I know than who I don’t know. Does the state not run our
highways? Do you really think they have done the best with our highways that can
be done? So, I’m mean, if they do the same job with our dams, what’s that gonna
end up being?”
Not even Governor Perdue can answer that yet. Nor is it clear how the transfer would
work or what the state might have to pay for it. Those decisions are up to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees thousands of hydropower licenses, but
has yet to take one over.
Talking to Mark Robinson – the commission’s director of energy projects – you can
practically hear him scratching his head through the phone line.
“We really can’t figure out what the idea was there. But I’m sure with the help of a
number of very smart lawyers we would all figure it out.”
Since Alcoa expected a decision on its license this summer, lawyers on both sides are
already working overtime.
People across the country are watching closely, because the outcome will set an
important precedent at a time when water is no longer the endless resource many once
thought.
Under cap-and-trade, if a business can cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits - for a price - to a business that can’t. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
A poll by Rasmussen found 76% of Americans don’t know what cap-and-trade is.
Person 1: “Putting a price cap on something?”
Person 2: “Cap and trade? I have no idea.”
Person 3: “Captain Trade? I never heard of him.”
Here’s the simple version: cap greenhouse gases. The government will lower that cap over time.
Cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits – for a price – to a business that can’t.
Overall, it’ll make fossil fuels more expensive, clean energy cheaper.
Democratic leaders in the House have agreed on a cap-and-trade plan. Republicans – and some Democrats – hate the plan. They think it’ll cost the economy too much.
The House will likely pass it. But Darren Samuelsohn with GreenWire says President Obama will have to push for it in the Senate.
“He could probably twist some arms and make some votes go his way if he really wanted it.”
And, even then, CAP and TRADE will likely only squeak through.
The lot that started Baldassari's quest to eliminate waste from his business. (Photo by Nancy Paladino of The Taylor Companies)
Wood scraps used to go to the dump - now they're used as mulch and at local farms for horse bedding. (Photo by Nancy Paladino of The Taylor Companies)
A canadian company picks up leather upholstery scraps to make wallets and purses. (Photo by Nancy Paladino of The Taylor Companies)
When you’re in the business of making things, you can wind
up with a lot of waste material. But these days more
companies are realizing trash has value. Julie Grant reports
instead of spending big bucks to dump their waste in a
landfill, these companies are making money from it:
Transcript
When you’re in the business of making things, you can wind
up with a lot of waste material. But these days more
companies are realizing trash has value. Julie Grant reports
instead of spending big bucks to dump their waste in a
landfill, these companies are making money from it:
Jeff Baldassari’s company makes sleek, upscale office
furniture.
“I would have never guessed ten years ago I’d
be the guy telling you this story right now.”
Baldassari is the CEO of The Taylor Companies.
A few years ago he started planning for a new factory. The
site where they wanted to build it was an old brownfield.
That’s a site that had been contaminated by a past
manufacturer.
Baldassari says they got grant money to clean up the land,
and it got them thinking about the environment – really for the
first time.
“‘Okay we cleaned up this brownfield – but
let’s not stop there. What else can we do for
the environment, what else can we do for our
bottom line to pay for this new facility, to
get it to pay for itself?’”
They started looking at their waste.
(sound of a factory)
On the factory floor, a worker is tracing the shape of a chair
leg onto a piece of wood. After it’s cut, the scrap wood is
tossed into a large box.
“Trees don’t grow in the shape of furniture
parts. So there is a lot of waste. Ultimately,
40% of each board ends up as scrap when it’s
all said and done – 30% to 40% will end up as
scrap.”
Baldassari says they used to pay to send all that scrap wood
to the landfill – along with huge dumpsters full of sawdust.
That cost the company.
But his team started making some calls. They found horse
farms that wanted sawdust for bedding. They found
companies that wanted wood chips for mulch.
Instead paying to have dumpsters of waste hauled away,
they found markets for the waste material.
It was the same deal with leather coverings for the chairs
and sofas. One-fourth of the leather used to end up in the
scrap heap as trash. Now a hand-bag maker in Montreal
comes to pick it up for purses and wallets.
And Baldassari is pretty happy about it. These days he’s
sending only one-eighth of the waste to the landfill as before.
That saves the company $30,000 dollars a year.
For many companies, this is the future.
Joel Makower says smart corporate leaders are finding ways
to reach zero-waste. Makower is the executive editor of
greenbiz.com.
“We’re starting to see companies think in
terms of closed loop systems. Factories
where basically there may not be any
smokestacks, drain pipes, or dumpsters.
where every waste product is turned into
some kind of raw material for another
process.”
But a lot of these companies are not necessarily cutting
waste because it’s good for the earth. Like Jeff Baldassari,
these corporate leaders often start the process as a way to
save money.
These days Baldassari says he’s the kind businessman he
never guessed he’d be: one who’s always looking for ways
to eliminate waste:
“Once I got started, I literally became
addicted to it. But it was addicted, in the
sense again, it helped our bottom line.”
Baldassari wants it clear: he’s not a tree-hugger. But, at this
point, he’s actually having fun. He’s caught up in finding
ways to save money by eliminating waste.
Economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what (Photo courtesy of aoc.gov)
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Transcript
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Under some of the cap and trade plans, oil and gas companies would have to buy pollution permits.
But these companies want them for free.
They say if they’re forced to pay, they’ll have to pass the cost onto you and me.
But economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what.
That’s because things like coal, oil, and natural gas will be restriced.
And they say that’s what drives prices up.
Chad Stone is the Chief Economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
He says if pollution permits are bought at an auction, the money can be passed onto you and me. But it’s different if they’re just given away for free.
“If you don’t auction, you don’t have any revenue and consumers only get a hit to their budgets.”
Stone says if the pollution permits are auctioned, you could be getting a check in the mail or a tax credit to help you pay for higher energy bills.
Tesla's Roadster Sport - a 2-seat sports car priced at $100,000 (Photo courtesy of Tesla Motors)
If you want a clean electric vehicle to cruise the highway today, you really only have one option – a small, Silicon Valley company named Tesla. Tesla has plans to be a big player in the auto industry, but so far the company has only built a few hundred cars. Dustin Dwyer looks at whether Tesla can make it in one of the toughest industries around:
Transcript
If you want a clean electric vehicle to cruise the highway today, you really only have one option – a small, Silicon Valley company named Tesla. Tesla has plans to be a big player in the auto industry, but so far the company has only built a few hundred cars. Dustin Dwyer looks at whether Tesla can make it in one of the toughest industries around:
If you’re trying to get attention for a new vehicle, a big auto show is one of the best places to get it.
And even this year, as GM and Chrysler hobbled into the Detroit auto show on federal life support, and all carmakers scaled back, there was still a lot of hype.
Here’s GM’s introduction for the Chevy Volt.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the future of automotive transportation has entered the building.”
That’s how the big players make their announcements.
Tesla is not a big player.
CEO Elon Musk made his big announcement in a hotel conference room in front of a bunch of geeky auto analysts.
“A big announcement that I’ve just gotten this morning permission this morning to make is, um” (takes drink)
Here he takes a drink of his water.
“…that Daimler has given us permission to acknowledge that they are the automotive partner that we’re working with.”
That means Tesla is going to help make an electric version of Daimler’s tiny Smart Car.
Musk is not much of a salesman. But maybe he doesn’t have to be. While all the big carmakers are seeing huge sales drops, Musk says Tesla sales keep going up.
“And, well, actually we can’t produce them fast enough and we’re sold out through November of this year.”
Now, Tesla – at most – makes 30 vehicles a week. And its only car, a sporty roadster, sells for more than $100,000.
A company like GM sells thousands of cars a week, and people who aren’t movie stars can actually afford some of them.
But Musk says he wants Tesla to be more than just a small time player.
So now the company is working on a four-door sedan that will sell for about $50,000 – still pricey for most of us, but half the price of its two-seat roadster.
Here’s the thing though, right now, Tesla has the electric vehicle market all to itself. But all the big companies are working on their own electric cars.
So when Tesla comes out with its four-door sedan, the competition will be much tougher.
Michael Robinet is an auto industry analyst with the firm CSM Worldwide. He says Tesla’s small size is a problem.
“Economies of scale is one of the main drivers of this industry to get cost out of the vehicle and be competitive. And that’s where the major vehicle manufacturers are going to have a leg up in the future.”
Some who follow the auto industry think Tesla’s future could be as more of a partner to existing companies, like what Tesla is doing with Daimler.
But Elon Musk insists Tesla will continue to make its own cars. And it can succeed.
“You go through sort of stages of denial, I guess. You know, when we first said we’d make this car, people said you can’t make this car. It’s not going to work, the technology’s not going to work, and even if the technology works, nobody’s gonna buy the damn thing. And we’ve shown, hey, we can make the technology work and people really want to buy it. So, okay, then they go to the next stage, ‘Oh, well, sure, okay, people will buy that car, but they won’t buy a sedan.’”
Tesla plans to unveil the new sedan later this month (March 26). The car is expected to go on sale in 2011.
In the meantime, Tesla has not been completely immune to all the problems facing the auto industry. Tesla had trouble raising money last year to finance the new sedan. So it turned to the federal government for a 350 million dollar loan.
At least in that one sense, Tesla is already acting like a major player.
Congress will soon debate a carbon-cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports that debate will renew arguments about jobs versus the environment:
Transcript
Congress will soon debate a carbon-cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports that debate will renew arguments about jobs versus the environment:
This is an old argument with a new twist.
It goes like this. The economy is a mess. We need jobs. So right now we should worry less about the environment and more about jobs.
Putting a price on carbon emissions will gradually make fossil fuels like coal more expensive to burn.
That will cost big corporations that use a lot of energy. Opponents of cap-and-trade say it’s a job-killer.
But at the same time, carbon-cap-and-trade will make solar and wind more attractive. And that could create green collar jobs.
Environmental activists such as the Environmental Defense Fund’s Tony Kreindler say that won’t stop the critics.
“You’re always going to have defenders of the status quo claiming that it’s going to be economic ruin.”
But, a growing number of business leaders see carbon-cap-and-trade as a way to invest in an energy future that pollutes less and makes the U.S. more energy independent.
A Dow Chemical sign next to a river in Michigan contaminated with dioxin. Homeowners downstream are still waiting for their case against Dow to be heard. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
The world’s largest chemical company is fighting a lawsuit filed because of dioxin pollution. Rick Pluta reports neighbors downstream from Dow Chemical’s headquarters in Michigan want something to budge in the case:
Transcript
The world’s largest chemical company is fighting a lawsuit filed because of dioxin pollution. Rick Pluta reports neighbors downstream from Dow Chemical’s headquarters in Michigan want something to budge in the case:
A Dow chemical plant near the company’s headquarters in Michigan produced all kinds of products over decades, including Agent Orange. Dioxin polluted the Tittabawassee River and its flood plain. A group of 173 people have sued, after learning their property is contaminated. Many of these people have been involved in this litigation for six years. The courts still have not gotten around to their case. Attorney Theresa Golden took their case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
“The clients obviously are concerned and disappointed that it’s taken us long to get to this point.”
The group wants class action status, so every single homeowner does not have to take on the corporate giant. There are a couple thousand property downstream of this plant. And Dow does not like the idea of potentially having to pay every one of them.
Christians for the Mountains field worker
Robert "Sage" Russo standing on Kayford Mountain overlooking an MTR
site in West Virginia (Photo courtesy of Christians for the Mountains)
Environmentalists have been fighting to stop mountain top removal coal mining for
decades. They say they want to preserve the mountains, the water that’s polluted by the
mining and the people. But many of the people don’t want the help. They want the jobs
provided by the mining operations. Sandra Sleight Brennan reports the struggle
between the two sides is complicated. Now churches and synagogues are introducing
religion into that struggle:
Transcript
Environmentalists have been fighting to stop mountain top removal coal mining for
decades. They say they want to preserve the mountains, the water that’s polluted by the
mining and the people. But many of the people don’t want the help. They want the jobs
provided by the mining operations. Sandra Sleight Brennan reports the struggle
between the two sides is complicated. Now churches and synagogues are introducing
religion into that struggle:
The line drawn between environmentalists who want to stop mountain removal
coal mining and the coal miners who depend on it for jobs has always been
smudged.
Often the environmental activists had relatives and close friends who worked for
the mining companies. There aren’t a lot of jobs in the Appalachian Mountains.
Of the jobs that are there, the coal mining jobs pay the most.
In the small Appalachian towns in the coal fields, the God-fearing families who
depended on the mining jobs have often seen the environmentalists as people
who were out to destroy their way of life.
But lately some people are seeing things differently. More than a dozen churches
and synagogues have passed resolutions against mountaintop removal mining.
Allan Johnson is the co-founder of Christians for the Mountains, a group that’s
sided with the environmentalists.
“It’s a serious issue, ultimately it is a moral issue and, as a moral issue, we’re appealing
to the religious communities, the Christian communities. We’ve got to do right. We
cannot destroy God’s creation in order to have a temporal economy.”
And Johnson is getting help from other Christians. Rebekah Eppling is an
Ameri-Corps VISTA volunteer. She’s working with Christians for the Mountains.
“We present ourselves that we are a Christian organization and we are working for
Creation Care and we are following the Biblical mandate to take care of God’s planet – it
brings a different sense of what we’re doing to people. So a lot of people who
traditionally wouldn’t be interested all the sudden start to realize the different aspects of
it. It kind of hits a different spark for them.”
Creation Care is how some Evangelical Christians describe their brand of
environmentalism. One of the most prominent spokesman for Creation Care is
Richard Cizik. He’s a former Vice President of the National Association of
Evangelicals.
“We say Creation Care because first of all we believe the earth was created and
second of all we know from God’s word in Genesis that we are to care and protect
it. So, we call it Creation Care.”
The group, Christians for the Mountains, works with many different
denominations. They teach people who want to get involved about the issues
surrounding mining. They go into detail about how the short term benefit of the
destructive form of mining not only alters the mountains, but pollutes the streams
and ultimately the drinking water. They point out that once the coal fields are
mined, the jobs are gone and the communities are left to live with the damage to
the environment.
Volunteer Rebekah Eppling says there’s resistance to the message.
“The term environmentalist is kind of a dirty word in the coalfields region. Since we are a
religious organization that puts us in a unique spot.”
“We do get some pretty harsh criticism.”
Allen Johnson with Christians for the Mountains.
“We are concerned about people’s jobs. We want to have a healthy economy. And it is
not a healthy economy in that area. If you go down into the area with the mountaintop
removal is going on it in some of the impoverished areas in the country.”
Like the more traditional kinds of environmentalists, these Creation Care
environmentalists have ties to the community. Eppling says her family comes
from an area that’s targeted for coal mining in the near future.
“My family is very supportive of what I’m doing. Because they see the place where they
used to live are now being destroyed. The mountain very close to where my
grandmother and father grew up its being blasted away. My father and his family are
from Boone County – which is one of the big coal producing areas. Coal River runs right
behind his house where he grew up.”
The Christians for the Mountains know the families that depend on the coal
mining don’t always understand why anyone would want to stop one of the very
few industries that offer good paying jobs in the region. But Rebekah Eppling
says there has to be a better way than blowing up the tops of the mountains and
filling the valleys with rubble.
“It’s not just environmentalist versus workers. It’s a very complex. It’s not just about
stopping coal – it’s about bringing in more options for people.”
And some of those options include preserving the environment by finding alternatives for
the region – such as wind energy, tourism, and not letting the mining companies decide
the fate of the Appalachian Mountains and the people who live there.
For The Environment Report, I’m Sandra Sleight-Brennan.
Drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas (Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratories)
