How the Fracking Boom Increases Production of Disposable Plastics

by Duane Nichols on May 2, 2014

What To Do With Waste Plastic?

The Accumulation of Waste Plastic on Land & Sea is Alarming

From an Article by Susan Freinkel, NRDC OnEarth, April 29, 2014

I used to keep a running list of stupid plastic products and gimmicks I had seen or heard about. Like the gizmo that somebody invented to aid in the task of cutting a hot dog into 12 identically-sized pieces. Or disposable Holy Communion cups that come pre-filled with wine, their tops sealed with peel-away foil. Or—my personal favorite—Del Monte’s plastic-wrapped, single-serve banana, which, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, is apparently a product for “people who love bananas, but hate their biodegradability.”

Natural gas contains many of the vital raw materials that are used to manufacture plastics and chemicals. Experts are predicting enormous increases in production of those plastics most often used in disposable consumer packaging and single-use products.

All of these ridiculously unnecessary products testify to just how addicted we’ve become to the presence of throwaway plastics in our everyday lives. Yet weaning ourselves from them may soon be harder than it’s ever been—thanks to the recent boom in shale gas, of all things.

Twenty years ago, domestic producers of natural gas couldn’t find enough reserves to justify the expenses associated with drilling. Today, thanks in large part to fracking, we’re experiencing a natural-gas bonanza. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, new developments in drilling and extraction technology have opened the door for the capture of more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas—enough to take us, at current rates of consumption, into the twenty-second century.

The shale boom has been a game-changer for the plastics industry. Just a few years ago, domestic gas prices were so high that U.S. companies were struggling to compete against producers in Asia and the Middle East, and were shutting down or shrinking their plants. Nowadays the U.S. is one of the cheapest places in the world to make plastic, according to Joseph Chang, global editor of ICIS Chemical Business. The petrochemical industry is ecstatic.

“This is the first time in more than a decade we’ve been able to talk about building facilities [and] increasing capacity,” says Steve Russell, vice president of the plastics department of the American Chemistry Council, which represents many of the world’s biggest producers of raw plastics and recently produced a report analyzing the impact of the shale gas boom. To date, companies under its aegis have announced plans to spend more than $100 billion by 2020 to build new facilities or expand existing ones.

Most of the proposed projects are focused on extracting ethylene from the ethane contained in natural gas. Ethylene is one of the most widely used chemicals in the world—a key raw material for ammonia, antifreeze, vinyl and rubber. But more than anything else it’s used to make polyethylene: the plastic found in toys and diapers, plastic bags and bubble wrap, milk jugs and squeeze bottles. It’s the chief plastic found in most consumer packaging. Not surprisingly, it’s also the type of plastic most often found floating in ocean garbage patches, thousands of miles from land.

It takes gigantic furnaces known as crackers to break down ethane molecules into ethylene. The last time a new cracker was built in the U.S. was 2001. Now at least ten new crackers are slated for construction over the next several years—including a $6 billion plant that Chevron Phillips began building in Baytown, TX, earlier this month. The building boom extends from the industry’s traditional home, along Texas’s and Louisiana’s Gulf coast, to parts of Appalachia and western Pennsylvania that sit atop the ethane-rich Marcellus Shale. Royal Dutch Shell, just to cite one example, has proposed locating an ethane cracker in Monaca, PA, not far from Pittsburgh.

The environmental implications are hard to quantify at this early stage of the new polymer boom. Certainly, however, it seems clear that industry interest in developing greener, biobased plastics has dimmed. When oil and gas prices were higher, the major petrochemical companies were all busy exploring ways to make plastics from renewable feedstocks, such as corn, sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as from non-food plants (such as algae). “Anecdotally, that does seem a little off the front burner, compared to where it was,” says Don Loepp, editor of Plastics News.

The proposed cracker projects could conceivably boost polyethylene production by as much as 50 percent, taking it to more than 42 billion pounds a year. That’s fully six pounds of this one particular form of plastic for every man, woman and child on earth. That’s a lot of polyethylene. And it’s got to go somewhere.

The plastics industry has been very good at coming up with new ways to get consumers to substitute plastic for other, more traditional materials. The ubiquitous plastic shopping bag, to cite one famous example, is actually the product of a major marketing push in the 1970s by Exxon Mobil—then a leading maker of polyethylene—to replace conventional paper grocery sacks. It’s safe to assume that as the new crackers and plants come on line, we’ll likewise be seeing entirely new plastic products and packaging turning up in American stores.

As a matter of fact, they’re already starting to arrive: last year, polyethylene producer Dow Chemical introduced a flexible polyethylene pouch that the company is touting as a fantastic new form of packaging to mass-producers of food and beverages. One company that’s trying it out is Tyson Foods, which has just started using it for frozen chicken sold in Mexico. (On the plus side—just barely—the pouch is fully recyclable.)

But the coming boom in cheap polyethylene threatens to shove aside any serious discussion we need to be having about the ultimate cost—environmentally—of these conveniences. If industry has its way, we’ll all be too busy peeling the plastic wrap off our bananas to consider the consequences.

——– See also:

Some 22 Facts About Plastic Pollution (And 10 Things We Can Do About It) 

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Walleye Viewer May 2, 2014 at 7:47 pm

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/our-trash-reached-deepest-parts-ocean-us

Our Trash is Already in the Deepest Parts of the Oceans

May 1, 2014 | by Janet Fang

Results from a survey of the seafloor off the European coast reveal the depths our garbage can reach. Bottles, plastic bags, fishing gear, and various crap have been found as deep 4.5 kilometers below the surface, and in areas far as 2,000 kilometers from land. 

“Human litter is present in all marine habitats, from beaches to the most remote and deepest parts of the oceans,” study coauthor Kerry Howell from Plymouth University, UK, says in a press release. “Most of the deep sea remains unexplored by humans, and these are our first visits to many of these sites, but we were shocked to find that our rubbish has got there before us.”

Marine litter causes problems for mammals and fish when they mistaken it for food; it also entangles coral and fish (the process even has a name, “ghost fishing”). But because surveying in the deep ocean is very expensive and requires a multitude of sampling techniques, scientists haven’t been able to get a comprehensive look at the extent and contents of marine litter. So, the European Union sponsored the Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man’s Impact on European Seas (HERMIONE) project, a consortium of 41 partners from 13 countries, which ran from 2009 to 2012. Check out their image gallery. 

Using photos and videos from remotely-operated vehicles, a team led by Christopher Pham from the University of the Azores in Portugal analyzed nearly 600 seafloor transects gathered over 10 years from 32 sites across the Atlantic and Arctic oceans and the Mediterranean Sea. They also used trawling nets to collect litter on the ocean floor.

Litter was classified into six categories: plastic, derelict fishing gear, metal, glass, clinker (residue of burnt coal), and other, which includes cardboard, fabric, wood and unidentified items. Plastics accounted for 41 percent of the litter and derelict fishing gear was 34 percent.

They found litter at every location they surveyed: ranging from coastal seas to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 2,000 kilometers from land. Litter was also found at all depths: from shallow, 35-meter waters in the Gulf of Lion to 4.5 kilometers waters in Cascais Canyon, Portugal. Submarine canyons suffered the highest litter density, while the lowest density was found on continental shelves and on ocean ridges. 

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: