I recently came across an article in Bloomberg Businessweek (week of Nov. 7, 2011) entitled “The Underground Solution.” Natural gas might indeed be the underground solution, but I remain convinced that the all the solutions we need, and should be focusing on developing, remain abundant, obvious, and safely above ground.  Supposing that the transition to those renewable energy sources will take a while, I think it’s worth taking a look at this miracle cure for the energy crisis.  The front page of the article boasts in bold, bright orange print that “at the 2010 rate of consumption in the U.S., we have enough potential natural gas resources to supply over 100 YEARS OF USE.” Four questions arose in my mind from this supposedly-incredibly-inspiring number: 1. In our global economy of sharing and exchanging various energy sources, how can you only take into account the U.S. in this figure? 2. Why would you calculate something for the next 100 years, and only use the current rate of consumption? 3. Assuming that consumption would grow somewhat obviously over the next 100 years, what would the real number be?  And finally, 4. Whether we have enough natural gas resources to last for 100 years or even 200 years, why is any finite number large enough to satisfy consumers that this is the route to take?

But putting that number behind us for a bit, natural gas definitely sounds like the direction towards which we should be steering our non-renewable fuel use.  The Bloomberg article boasted a chart  comparing natural gas, coal, and oil, where NG produced exceedingly less carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and nitrogen oxides, and only failed on the hydrocarbons (smog) front, where NG produced more than half of that of coal.  And the process of tapping into these NG resources – fracking – sounds much better in comparison, as well.  Just force some highly pressurized water and sand (water is good, right?), which is mixed with only 0.5-2% of extremely toxic chemicals (which only have a “miniscule” chance of passing by a drinking water supply, despite over 50 cases so far pointing otherwise), down into the earth to crack it open and allow the gas to flow through.  There are also techniques like ‘waterless fracking’ in the works that make the process safer for drinking water and general environmental impact.  Those in the industry have reassured us that as fracking expands, closer regulation can clean up and lessen the risks associated with it.

Beyond the risks of drinking water contamination and infrastructure-damaging earthquakes, are the impacts on the local communities.  As I was writing this blog post, I happened to be traveling through the Finger Lakes region of New York state where I saw dozens of signs posted in front yards and local businesses.

I checked out the website on the sign, where citizens are concerned when they take a look at other fracking communities. A constant flow of trucks with the treated water in combo with constant noise pollution isn’t exactly neighborly.  I suppose someone has to make a sacrifice to “solve” the energy crisis (for at most another 100 years).

So what are the policies on natural gas, if it does hold the miracle energy cure? For the first time in six years, the Senate had a hearing about natural gas last week.  Its growth has been so rapid recently, that the topic was about exporting our liquefied natural gas.  Apparently, in the U.S. we have multiple terminals through which to import gas, which have gone largely unused.  Now the conversation is shifting to the possibility of converting those to export LNG, or other ways we can build up our infrastructure so LNG becomes a global, tradable commodity like crude oil.   After all, the price of LNG in Europe or Asia is up to 3-5 times higher than it is in the U.S., so exporting just seems natural.  At this state of our economy, I think that our priority should be keeping domestic gas prices steady and reliable.

Earlier in 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy approved exports from a Louisiana LNG project that was expected to raise gas prices by 10% through 2015.  It was allowed because this number was deemed to be acceptable to the public interest, and five times that amount of exports are being considered, both to free trade agreement and non-FTA countries.  U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon brought up the question, “does the department believe that raising gas prices by five times that amount would be in the public interest?”  Assistant Energy Secretary Chris Smith responded that the price impact is being researched.  There are currently two studies being conducted that will be released early in 2012 that will tell us what the effects of exporting might be – gauging elasticity of domestic supply, elasticity of foreign supply, the exchange rate and the cost of exports.

While we don’t yet know if LNG exports are within the U.S. interest, do we really want to build a whole new infrastructure and trading system for another finite resource?  Why not focus on improving renewable energies and storage capacities for these technologies?  I believe that any place we have an opportunity to substitute coal or oil with natural gas, we should do it.  However, let that only be in the background of implementing and transitioning to sustainable energy solutions which will have minimal impact on our natural environment and communities.