# What are the implications of the US natural gas boom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592 "2012-05-02T01:13:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592/21 "2012-05-04T16:48:33Z")
> [@ClintO](#): > > The only way fracking can contaminate ground water is if the well bore has a bad cement job and even then they know and send a tool down hole to fix it. The actual frac occurs at the bottom of the well which is 15,000 to 25,000 ft below the ground. the water table is no where close to being this deep. So it’s misleading to say the oil companies are putting chemicals straight into the drinking water. Don’t overstate it; your well depths are way off. None of the major unconventional plays are that deep. Most of the plays are in the 4,000 to 12,000 foot depth. There are of course 25,000 foot wells, but you usually don’t frac those: think McMoRan type lower Wilcox wells for an example. Also, there is frac’ing of coalbed methane which is more in the 500 to 4,000 foot depths. Your point is correct though, most frac’ing occurs far below the water table. Poor cement jobs and problems at the surface are the usual causes of groundwater contamination from oil and gas operations. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592/22 "2012-05-04T16:51:25Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The sad thing is, as we blow billions of $$ on idiotic technologies like solar and wind, we could become essentially energy independent. That means: > -no more involvement in the ME > -no more kowtowing to the corrupt kingdom/mafiosi of Saudi Arabia > -lowered emissions (natural gas burns clean) > a huge drop in our balance of payments deficit > Of course, we won’t exploit this opportunity-we’ll continue on the present path!😕 As the largest exporter of oil, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East (and other OPEC nations) will still be of great interest to the U.S. regardless of whether or not the U.S. is energy independent. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592/23 "2012-05-04T16:55:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The way natural gas replaces gasoline is not with compressed natural gas. Its with electric cars (at least if you want to make a dent in gasoline use in the forseeable future). Even solar and wind cannot replace gasoline except to the extent they can generate electricity and use the electricity for plug in vehicles. CNG and electric powered vehicles are both being pursued with some limited success. The municipal fleets and large truck fleets may very well make a big move to CNG. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592/24 "2012-05-04T17:05:56Z")
[QUOTE=LonghornDave] If wind and solar are free than so is natural gas and oil, right? I mean the stuff is just sitting there free for the taking. All you have to do is spend a bunch of money and brain power to produce it and put it in a useable form, but other than that it’s all free. [/QUOTE] I said that tongue in cheek. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592/26 "2012-05-05T16:49:21Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > The vast majority of California’s natural gas comes from out of state: places like New Mexico, Colorado, and Canada. California has had cheap natural gas for a long time because natural gas has been cheap in most of the U.S. for a long time. It was always a little more expensive in the North East, but it was still cheap there too. Then why isn’t (most of) the rest of the country using natural gas power plants like California is? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592/27 "2012-05-06T13:46:02Z")
One reason is that greenfield natural gas has only been very recently cheaper than existing coal. Another is that the large pipelines and infrastructure needed to support generation simply do not exist in many areas of the United States. Another is that even with recent cheapness of gas and small coal plants being shut down, we are still in a major recession, with demand down and utility companies not wanting to make major investments in anything. And if you want to go back a little further, you can blame the FUA of 1978, which until it was repealed prohibited construction of new gas power plants unless an alternate fuel could be used as a primary energy source. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-the-us-natural-gas-boom/620592.md?page=1)