You are on page 1of 25

Pros and Cons of Fracking

A Case Study
Roselle Marie D. Azucena, MAN,MBA

Case Abstract:
Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," has gained popularity over recent years, and given
the controversy over this practice, new research decided to lay out some of its
environmental pros as well as cons.

Disappearing Groundwater: An Unrealized Threat to Our Future

Fracking's Impact on Animals Still Largely Unknown

'Fracking in the Dark': Why it Must Stop

Fracking involves blasting huge amounts of water, sand and chemicals deep into
underground rock formations to access valuable oil and natural gas. While this is a form
of alternative energy, it also has harmful environmental implications, influencing local air
pollution, earthquakes and, especially, clean water supply.
A group of environmental scientists from Stanford University set out to answer some
common questions about fracking.
"Society is certain to extract more gas and oil due to fracking," Stanford environmental
scientist Robert Jackson, who led the new study, said in a statement. "The key is to
reduce the environmental costs as much as possible, while making the most of the
environmental benefits."
Fracking's hefty consumption of water is especially concerning considering that much of
the United States is currently suffering from drought. Fracking requires more water than
conventional gas drilling; but when natural gas is used in place of coal or nuclear fuel to
generate electricity, it ends up saving water.
The impact of hydraulic fracturing on both climate change and local air pollution is
similar to its impact on water, according to the study, published in the journal Annual
Review of Environment and Resources.
Those living near fractured wells are potentially at risk of health threats given the
increased amount of volatile organic compounds and air toxins in the area. On the flip
side, when natural gas replaces, say coal as a fuel for generating electricity, the benefits
to air quality include lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal and almost none of the
mercury, sulfur dioxide or ash.
In terms of global climate change, however, scientists are still unsure of what role
fracking's resulting toxins play in the greenhouse gas effect.
"While the increased gas supply reduces air pollution in US cities downwind from coalfired power plants, we still don't know whether methane losses from well pads and
pipelines outweigh the lower carbon dioxide emissions," Jackson explained.
But possibly the most cited issue associated with fracking is its impact on groundwater
contamination.

"Wastewater disposal is one of the biggest issues associated with fracking," added coauthor Avner Vengosh of Duke University.
Previous research has shown that 10 to 40 percent of the chemical mixture injected into
the ground during fracking flows back to the surface during well development, Nature
World News recently reported.
Although further research is needed to conclusively determine fracking's role in
groundwater contamination, as well as climate change and air pollution, scientists
behind this new study highlight several policies and practices that could optimize
fracking's environmental cost-benefit balance.

Theres an issue where the underlying science remains a political football, and scientists
are regularly challenged and called out personally. Where energy needs and short-term
economic growth are set against our childrens health and future. Where the
consequences of bad, short-sighted decisions may be borne primarily by a small subset
of under-served and undeserving persons. And where the very descriptive terms in the
debate are radioactive, words spun as epithets.
Were not talking here about global warming, and deniers versus warmists. Were
talking about the game-changing new set of unconventional oil and gas extraction
technologies and techniques collectively known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Ask the most hardcore of pro-fracking boosters for their take, and theyll describe the
modern miracle of Americas new-found energy independence, a reality almost
inconceivable just a decade ago. For them, the oil and gas boom around the U.S. has
helped to reboot the economy at a time of great need. Prices at the pump have
plummeted. Sure, they may acknowledge, there are a few safety issues to be worked
out and techniques yet to be perfected, but just look at the big picture.
Fracking detractors in environmental and social justice circles, meanwhile, will conjure
up the iconic image: Flammable water flowing from a home faucet. And with that come
other haunting images: The double-crossed landowner hapless in the face of

aggressive Big Energy. The ugly rigs rising up amid the tranquility of Americas farm,
pasture, and suburban lands. The stench of unknown even secret chemicals,
sickness, and looming illnesses, and death.
Refereeing these confrontations is no easy thing, and unlike the settled science of
climate change and its causes, the science of fracking is far from settled. But a review
of the research can help clarify some of the chief points of contention.
If theres a single source plausibly seen as the fairest, most comprehensive, and cogent
assessment, it might be the 2014 literature review published in Annual Reviews of
Environment and Resources. Its titled The Environmental Costs and Benefits of
Fracking, authored by researchers affiliated with leading universities and research
organizations who reviewed more than 160 studies.
Below are the arguments and synthesized evidence on some key issues, based on the
available research literature and conversations with diverse experts.
Air quality, health, and the energy menu
ISSUE: The new supply of natural gas reachable by fracking is now changing the
overall picture for U.S. electricity generation, with consequences for air quality.
PRO FRACKING: Increasing reliance on natural gas, rather than coal, is indisputably
creating widespread public health benefits, as the burning of natural gas produces fewer
harmful particles in the air. The major new supply of natural gas produced through
fracking is displacing the burning of coal, which each year contributes to the early death
of thousands of people. Coal made up about 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation in
2008, 37 percent by 2012; meanwhile, natural gas went from about 20 percent to about
30 percent during that same period. In particular, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide
emissions have been reduced dramatically. Fracking saves lives, and it saves them
right now and not at some indiscernible date well into the future.

CON FRACKING: First, it is not the case that a new natural gas facility coming online
always replaces a legacy coal-fired power plant. It may displace coal in West Virginia or
North Carolina, but less so in Texas and across the West. So fracking is no sure bet for
improving regional air quality. Second, air quality dynamics around fracking operations
are not fully understood, and cumulative health impacts of fracking for nearby residents
and workers remain largely unknown. Some of the available research evidence from
places such as Utah and Colorado suggests there may be under-appreciated problems
with air quality, particularly relating to ozone. Further, natural gas is not a purely clean
and renewable source of energy, and so its benefits are only relative. It is not the
answer to truly cleaning up our air, and in fact could give pause to a much-needed and
well thought-out transition to wind, solar, geothermal, and other sources that produce
fewer or no harmful airborne fine particulates.

Greenhouse gas leaks, methane and fugitive emissions


ISSUE: The extraction process results in some greenhouse gas emissions leakage.

Fracking in Pennsylvania, Marcellus Shale,


PRO FRACKING: We know that, at the power plant level, natural gas produces only
somewhere between 44 and 50 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions compared
with burning of coal. This is known for certain; its basic chemistry. That is a gigantic
benefit. Further, some research that claims methane is so harmful uses a 20-year time
horizon; but over a 100-year time horizon the way we generally measure global
warming potential methane is not nearly so harmful as claimed. Thus, methanes
impact is potent but relatively brief compared with impacts of increased carbon dioxide
emissions. The number-one priority must be to reduce the reliance on coal, the biggest
threat to the atmosphere right now. Fears about emissions leaks are overblown. Even if
the true leakage rate were slightly more than EPA and some states estimate, it is not
that dramatic. We are developing technology to reduce these leaks and further narrow
the gap. Moreover, research-based modeling suggests that even if energy consumption
increases overall, the United States still will reap greenhouse benefits as a result of
fracking.
CON FRACKING: Research from Cornell has suggested that leaked methane a
powerful greenhouse gas from wells essentially wipes out any greenhouse gas
benefits of natural gas derived from fracking. And at other points in the life cycle, namely
transmission and distribution, there are further ample leaks. Falling natural gas prices
will only encourage more energy use, negating any cleaner benefits of gas. Finally,
there is no question that the embrace of cheap natural gas will undercut incentives to

invest in solar, wind, and other renewables. We are at a crucial juncture over the next
few decades in terms of reducing the risk of tipping points and catastrophic melting of
the glaciers. Natural gas is often seen as a bridge, but it is likely a bridge too far,
beyond the point where scientists believe we can go in terms of greenhouse gas levels
in the atmosphere.
Drinking water wars
ISSUE: Fracking may threaten human health by contaminating drinking water supplies.
PRO FRACKING: It is highly unlikely that well-run drilling operations, which involve
extracting oil and gas from thousands of feet down in the ground, are creating cracks
that allow chemicals to reach relatively shallow aquifers and surface water supplies.
Drinking water and oil and gas deposits are at very different levels in the ground. To the
extent that there are problems, we must make sure companies pay more attention to
the surface operations and the top 500 to 1,000 feet of piping. But thats not the fracking
thats just a matter of making sure that the steel tubing, the casing, is not leaking and
that the cement around it doesnt have cracks. Certain geologies, such as those in
Pennsylvanias Marcellus Shale region, do require more care; but research has found
that between 2008 and 2011, only a handful of major incidents happened across more
than 3,500 wells in the Marcellus. We are learning and getting better. So this is a
technical, well-integrity issue, not a deal-breaker. As for the flammable water, it is a fact
that flammable water was a reality 100 years ago in some of these areas. It can be
made slightly worse in a minority of cases, but its unlikely and it is often the result of
leaks from activities other than fracking. In terms of disclosure, many of the chemicals
are listed on data sheets available to first-responders: The information is disclosed to
relevant authorities.

Fayetteville Shale, Arkansas


CON FRACKING: This April, yet another major study, published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, confirmed that high-volume hydraulic fracturing
techniques can contaminate drinking water. There have been numerous reports by
citizens across the country of fouled tap water; it is a fact that some of the tap water has
even turned bubbly and flammable, as a result of increased methane. Well blowouts
have happened, and they are a complete hazard to the environment. The companies
involved cannot be trusted, and roughly one in five chemicals involved in the fracking
process are still classified as trade secrets. Even well-meaning disclosure efforts such
as FracFocus.org do not provide sufficient information. And we know that there are
many who cut corners out in the field, no matter the federal or state regulations we try to
impose. They already receive dozens of violation notices at sites, with little effect. Weve
created a Gold Rush/Wild West situation by green-lighting all of this drilling, and in the
face of these economic incentives, enforcement has little impact.
Infrastructure, resources, and communities
ISSUE: Fracking operations are sometimes taking place near and around populated
areas, with consequences for the local built and natural environments.
PRO FRACKING: Water intensity is lower for fracking than other fossil fuels and
nuclear: Coal, nuclear and oil extraction use approximately two, three, and 10 times,

respectively, as much water as fracking per energy unit, and corn ethanol may use
1,000 times more if the plants are irrigated. For communities, the optics, aesthetics, and
quality of life issues are real, but its worth remembering that drilling operations and rigs
dont go on forever its not like putting up a permanent heavy manufacturing facility.
The operations are targeted and finite, and the productivity of wells is steadily rising,
getting more value during operations. Moreover, the overall societal benefits outweigh
the downsides, which are largely subjective in this respect.
CON FRACKING: More than 15 million Americans have had a fracking operation within
a mile of their home. Still, that means that a small proportion of people shoulder the
burden and downsides, with no real compensation for this intrusive new industrial
presence. Fracking is hugely water-intensive: A well can require anywhere from two- to
20-million gallons of water, with another 25 percent used for operations such as drilling
and extraction. It can impact local water sources. The big, heavy trucks beat up our
roads over hundreds of trips back-and-forth with well-documented consequences for
local budgets and infrastructure. In places such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado,
the drilling rigs have popped up near where people have their homes, diminishing the
quality of life and creating an industrial feel to some of our communities. This is poor
planning at best, and sheer greed at its worst. It seldom involves the preferences of the
local residents.
Finally, its also the case that relatively low impact fees are being charged and relatively
little funding is being set aside to mitigate future problems as wells age and further
clean-up is necessary. It is the opposite of a sustainable solution, as well production
tends to drop sharply after initial fracking. Within just five years, wells may produce just
10 percent of what they did in the first month of operation. In short order, were likely to
have tens of thousands of sealed and abandoned wells all over the U.S. landscape,
many of which will need to be monitored, reinforced, and maintained. It is a giant
unfunded scheme.
Earthquakes: Seismic worries

ISSUE: Fracking wells, drilled thousands of feet down, may change geology in a
potentially negative way, leading to earthquakes.
PRO FRACKING: Earthquakes are a naturally occurring phenomenon, and even in the
few instances where fracking operations likely contributed to them, they were minor.
Weve had tens of thousands of wells drilled over many years now, and there are
practically zero incidents in which operations-induced seismic effects impacted citizens.
Theres also research to suggest that the potential for earthquakes can be mitigated
through safeguards.
CON FRACKING: We are only just beginning to understand what we are doing to our
local geologies, and this is dangerous. The 2014 Annual Reviews of Environment and
Resources paper notes that between 1967 and 2000, geologists observed a steady
background rate of 21 earthquakes of 3.0 Mw or greater in the central United States per
year. Starting in 2001, when shale gas and other unconventional energy sources began
to grow, the rate rose steadily to [approximately] 100 such earthquakes annually, with
188 in 2011 alone. New research on seismology in places such as Texas and
Oklahoma suggests risky and unknown changes. It is just not smart policy to go
headlong first at massive scale and only later discover the consequences
The US Department of Energy (DOE) wrote in its Aug. 18, 2011 report "Shale Gas Production
Subcommittee 90-Day Report" on shalegas.energy.gov:
"Natural gas is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, providing a quarter of the countrys total
energy. Owing to breakthroughs in technology, production from shale formations has gone from a
negligible amount just a few years ago to being almost 30 percent of total U.S. natural gas
production. This has brought lower prices, domestic jobs, and the prospect of enhanced national
security due to the potential of substantial production growth. But the growth has also brought
questions about whether both current and future production can be done in an environmentally
sound fashion that meets the needs of public trust.
As with all energy use, shale gas must be produced in a manner that prevents, minimizes and
mitigates environmental damage and the risk of accidents and protects public health and safety.
Public concern and debate about the production of shale gas has grown as shale gas output has
expanded.
The Subcommittee identifies four major areas of concern: (1) Possible pollution of drinking water
from methane and chemicals used in fracturing fluids; (2) Air pollution; (3) Community disruption
during shale gas production; and (4) Cumulative adverse impacts that intensive shale production
can
have
on
communities
and
ecosystems.

There are serious environmental impacts underlying these concerns and these adverse
environmental impacts need to be prevented, reduced and, where possible, eliminated as soon as
possible. Absent effective control, public opposition will grow, thus putting continued production at
risk. Moreover, with anticipated increase in U.S. hydraulically fractured wells, if effective
environmental action is not taken today, the potential environmental consequences will grow to a
point that the country will be faced a more serious problem. Effective action requires both strong
regulation and a shale gas industry in which all participating companies are committed to
continuous
improvement.
The rapid expansion of production and rapid change in technology and field practice requires
federal and state agencies to adapt and evolve their regulations. Industrys pursuit of more efficient
operations often has environmental as well as economic benefits, including waste minimization,
greater gas recovery, less water usage, and a reduced operating footprint. So there are many
reasons to be optimistic that continuous improvement of shale gas production in reducing existing
and potential undesirable impacts can be a cooperative effort among the public, companies in the
industry, and regulators."
Aug. 18, 2011 - United States Department of Energy (DOE)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in its Nov. 3, 2011 publication "Plan to Study
the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources" on water.epa.gov:
"Natural gas plays a key role in our nations clean energy future. Recent advances in drilling
technologiesincluding horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturinghave made vast reserves of
natural gas economically recoverable in the US. Responsible development of Americas oil and
gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits...
As the use of hydraulic fracturing has increased, so have concerns about its potential
environmental and human health impacts. Many concerns about hydraulic fracturing center on
potential risks to drinking water resources, although other issues have been raised. In response to
public concern, the US Congress directed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
conduct scientific research to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking
water
resources.
This study plan represents an important milestone in responding to the direction from Congress.
EPA is committed to conducting a study that uses the best available science, independent sources
of information, and a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy
of the results. The Agency will work in consultation with other federal agencies, state and interstate
regulatory agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations, and others in the private and
public sector in carrying out this study. Stakeholder outreach as the study is being conducted will
continue to be a hallmark of our efforts, just as it was during the development of this study plan...
EPA recognizes that the public has raised concerns about hydraulic fracturing that extend beyond
the potential impacts on drinking water resources. This includes, for example, air impacts,
ecological effects, seismic risks, public safety, and occupational risks. These topics are currently
outside the scope of this study plan, but should be examined in the future."
[Editor's Note: In June 2015 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the results
of its study "Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on
Drinking Water Resources" (1 MB) , available at epa.gov. The conclusion of the study stated the
following:

"[W]e have identified potential mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing could affect drinking
water resources...
We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on
drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report,
we found specific instances where one or more of these mechanisms led to impacts on drinking
water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells...
Spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and produced water in certain cases have reached drinking water
resources, both surface and ground water. Discharge of treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater
has increased contaminant concentrations in receiving surface waters... In some cases, hydraulic
fracturing fluids have also been directly injected into drinking water resources, as defined in this
assessment, to produce oil or gas that co-exists in those formations.
The number of identified cases where drinking water resources were impacted are small relative to
the number of hydraulically fractured wells. This could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water
resources, or may be an underestimate as a result of several factors."]
Nov. 3, 2011 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) wrote in its May 2009 report "Water Resources and
Natural Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale" on the USGS website:
"Natural gas is an abundant, domestic energy resource that burns cleanly, and emits the lowest
amount of carbon dioxide per calorie of any fossil fuel... [N]atural gas resources in the United
States are important components of a national energy program that seeks both greater energy
independence and greener sources of energy...
While the technology of drilling directional boreholes, and the use of sophisticated hydraulic
fracturing processes to extract gas resources from tight rock have improved over the past few
decades, the knowledge of how this extraction might affect water resources has not kept pace.
Agencies that manage and protect water resources could benefit from a better understanding of
the impacts that drilling and stimulating... wells might have on water supplies, and a clearer idea of
the options for wastewater disposal."
May 2009 - United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Should the US Use Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) to


Extract Natural Gas?
PRO (yes)

CON (no)

The Wall Street Journal wrote in its June 25, Robert W. Howarth, PhD, Profesor of Ecology
2011 editorial "The Facts About Fracking":
and Environmental Biology at Cornell University,
and Anthony Ingraffea, PhD, Professor of Civil

"The U.S. is in the midst of an energy


revolution, and we don't mean solar panels or
wind turbines. A new gusher of natural gas from
shale has the potential to transform U.S. energy
productionthat is, unless politicians, greens
and
the
industry
mess
it
up...
The resulting boom is transforming America's
energy landscape. As recently as 2000, shale
gas was 1% of America's gas supplies; today it
is 25%. Prior to the shale breakthrough, U.S.
natural gas reserves were in decline, prices
exceeded $15 per million British thermal units,
and investors were building ports to import liquid
natural gas. Today, proven reserves are the
highest since 1971, prices have fallen close to
$4 and ports are being retrofitted for LNG
exports.
The shale boom is also reviving economically
suffering parts of the country, while offering a
new incentive for manufacturers to stay in the
U.S....
The question... is whether we are serious about
domestic energy production. All forms of energy
have risks and environmental costs, not least
wind (noise and dead birds and bats) and solar
(vast expanses of land). Yet renewables are
nowhere close to supplying enough energy,
even with large subsidies, to maintain America's
standard of living. The shale gas and oil boom is
the result of U.S. business innovation and risktaking. If we let the fear of undocumented
pollution kill this boom, we will deserve our fate
as a second-class industrial power."
June 25, 2011 - Wall Street Journal

and Environmental Engineering at Cornell


University, wrote in their Sep. 14, 2011 article
"Should Fracking Stop?" in Boston University's
Comment:
"Many fracking additives are toxic, carcinogenic
or mutagenic. Many are kept secret. In the
United States, such secrecy has been abetted
by the 2005 Halliburton loophole,' which
exempts fracking from many of the nations
major federal environmental-protection laws,
including the Safe Drinking Water Act... Fracking
extracts
natural
salts,
heavy
metals,
hydrocarbons and radioactive materials from the
shale, posing risks to ecosystems and public
health when these return to the surface. This
flowback is collected in open pits or large tanks
until treated, recycled or disposed of. Because
shale-gas development is so new, scientific
information on the environmental costs is
scarce. Only this year have studies begun to
appear in peer-reviewed journals, and these
give reason for pause. We call for a moratorium
on shale-gas development [which requires
fracking for extraction] to allow for better study
of the cumulative risks to water quality, air
quality and global climate. Only with such
comprehensive knowledge can appropriate
regulatory
frameworks
be
developed...
[S]hale gas competes for investment with green
energy technologies, slowing their development
and distracting politicians and the public from
developing a long-term sustainable energy
policy. With time, perhaps engineers can
develop more appropriate ways to handle
fracking-fluid return wastes, and perhaps the
technology can be made more sustainable and
less polluting in other ways. Meanwhile, the gas
should remain safely in the shale, while society
uses energy more efficiently and develops
renewable energy sources more aggressively."
Sep. 14, 2011 - Robert W. Howarth, PhD

The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC),


a national association of state groundwater
agencies, wrote in its Apr. 2009 publication
"Modern Shale Gas Development in the United
States: A Primer" on gwpc.org:
"Hydraulic fracturing has been a key technology
in making shale gas an affordable addition to
the Nations energy supply, and the technology
has proven to be a safe and effective
stimulation technique. Ground water is
protected during the shale gas fracturing
process by a combination of the casing and

EARTHWORKS, an environmental advocacy


organization, wrote in its Apr. 23, 2009 webpage
"Hydraulic
Fracturing
101"
on
earthworksaction.org:
"Hydraulic fracturing fluids contain toxic
chemicals and are being injected into and near
drinking water supplies...These chemicals have
known negative health effects such as

cement that is installed when the well is drilled


and the thousands of feet of rock between the
fracture zone and any fresh or treatable
aquifers... While challenges continue to exist
with water availability and water management,
innovative regional solutions are emerging that
allow shale gas development to continue while
ensuring that the water needs of other users
can be met and that surface and ground water
quality is protected."
Apr. 2009 - Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC)

Terry Engelder, PhD, Professor of Geosciences


at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in her
Sep. 14, 2011 article "Should Fracking Stop?" in
Boston University's Comment:
"I believe that there is enough domestic gas to
meet our needs for the foreseeable future
thanks to technological advances in hydraulic
fracturing. According to IHS, a businessinformation company in Douglas County,
Colorado, the estimated recoverable gas from
US shale source rocks using fracking is about
42 trillion cubic metres, almost equal to the total
conventional gas discovered in the United
States over the past 150 years, and equivalent
to about 65 times the current US annual
consumption. During the past three years, about
50 billion barrels of additional recoverable oil
have been found in shale oil deposits more
than 20% of the total conventional recoverable
US oil resource. These tight oil resources,
which also require fracking to access, could
generate 3 million barrels a day by 2020,
offsetting one-third of current oil imports.
International data arent as well known, but the
effect of fracking on global energy production
will
be
huge.
Global warming is a serious issue that frackingrelated gas production can help to alleviate...
Mankinds inexorable march towards 9 billion
people will require a broad portfolio of energy
resources, which can be gained only with
breakthroughs
such
as
fracking...

respiratory, neurological and reproductive


impacts, impacts on the central nervous system,
and
cancer...
There are number of ways in which hydraulic
fracturing threatens our drinking water...
[H]ydraulic fracturing fluids not only contain toxic
chemicals, but this operation utilizes high
volumes of fluids and high pressures to
intentionally open up underground pathways for
gas or oil to flow. Injected fluids have been
known to travel as far as 3,000 feet from a well,
and fracturing fluids may remain trapped
underground.
Most states' policies regarding hydraulic
fracturing amount to 'don't ask and don't tell.' At
the state level, most oil and gas agencies do not
require companies to report the volumes or
names of chemicals being injected during
hydraulic fracturing, and they have never
conducted any sampling to determine the
underground or surface fate of hydraulic
fracturing chemicals."
Apr. 23, 2009 - EARTHWORKS

Paul Krugman, PhD, Professor of Economics


and International Affairs at Princeton University,
wrote in his Nov. 6, 2011 op-ed "Here Comes
the Sun" in the New York Times:
"Fracking... imposes large costs on the public.
We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive)
wastewater that contaminates drinking water;
there is reason to suspect, despite industry
denials, that it also contaminates groundwater;
and the heavy trucking required for fracking
inflicts major damage on roads.

Economics 101 tells us that an industry


imposing large costs on third parties should be
required to 'internalize' those costs that is, to
pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that
damage as a cost of production. Fracking might
still be worth doing given those costs. But no
industry should be held harmless from its
Global warming aside, there is no compelling impacts on the environment and the nations
environmental reason to ban hydraulic infrastructure.
fracturing. There are environmental risks, but
these can be managed through existing, and Yet what the industry and its defenders demand
rapidly improving, technologies and regulations. is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook

It might be nice to have moratoria after each


breakthrough to study the consequences
(including the disposal of old batteries or
radioactive waste), but because energy
expenditure and economic health are so closely
linked, global moratoria are not practical.

for the damage it causes. Why? Because we


need that energy! For example, the industrybacked
organization
energyfromshale.org
declares that 'there are only two sides in the
debate: those who want our oil and natural
resources developed in a safe and responsible
The gains in employment, economics and way; and those who dont want our oil and
national security, combined with the potential to natural gas resources developed at all.'
reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions if
natural gas is managed properly, make a So its worth pointing out that special treatment
compelling case."
for fracking makes a mockery of free-market
principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be
against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose
costs without paying compensation is in effect a
huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the
government 'pick winners,' yet they demand
special treatment for this industry precisely
Timothy J. Considine, PhD, Director of the because they claim it will be a winner.
Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy
at the University of Wyoming, wrote in his June So what you need to know is that nothing you
7, 2011 paper "The Economic Opportunities of hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a
Shale Energy Development" for the Manhattan dream come true."
Institute for Policy Research:
Sep. 14, 2011 - Terry Engelder, PhD

Nov. 6, 2011 - Paul Krugman, PhD

"The natural gas boom that America is


experiencing is due largely to advances in
hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling
techniques which free gas trapped in densely
packed shale formations previously thought to Margot Roosevelt, staff writer at the Los
be
uneconomic... Angeles Times, wrote in her June 18, 2010
article "Gulf Oil Spill Worsens--But What About
[T]he net economic benefits of shale drilling in the Safety of Gas Fracking?":
the Marcellus are considerably positive while "Imagine a siege of hydrocarbons spewing from
the environmental impact of the typical deep below ground, polluting water and air,
Marcellus well is relatively low...
sickening animals and threatening the health of
unsuspecting Americans. And no one knows
[T]he probability of an environmental event is how long it will last.
small and that those that do occur are minor
and localized in their effects... [T]he potential No, we're not talking about BP's gulf oil spill.
economic benefits of shale gas exploration We're talking about hydraulic fracturing of
greatly exceed the potential environmental natural gas deposits. And if that phrase makes
impacts..."
your eyes glaze over, start blinking them open.
Fracking, as the practice is also known, may be
June 7, 2011 - Timothy J. Considine, PhD
coming to a drinking well or a water system near
you. It involves blasting water, sand and
chemicals, many of them toxic, into
underground rock to extract oil or gas...
Paul Chesser, Executive Director of the
American Tradition Institute, wrote in his July
2011 policy brief "The Great Frack Attack: The
War
on
Natural
Gas"
on
commonwealthfoundation.org:
"The development and growth of the Marcellus

[F]ormer Vice President Dick Cheney, in


partnership with the energy industry and drilling
companies such as his former employer,
Halliburton Corp., successfully pressured
Congress in 2005 to exempt fracking from the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and

Shale natural gas industry is a major boom for


Pennsylvania's economy. The industry has
directly and indirectly created tens of thousands
of new jobs, with tens of thousands more to
come if natural gas is allowed to continue in a
safe and responsible manner; paid out billions in
royalty and lease payment to landowners; and
contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to
state and local government tax coffers...
Among the myths alleged about 'Big Gas' is that
drillers are flocking to Pennsylvania's rich
Marcellus Shale reserves, engaging in
dangerous and highly polluting drilling activities,
and shirking responsibility for damages while
successfully
avoiding
paying
taxes...
These intentional distortions of reality have both
misinformed the public understanding in
Pennsylvania and the policy debate in
Harrisburg."
July 2011 - Paul Chesser

The American Petroleum Institute (API) wrote


on
its
webpage
"The
Promise"
on
EnergyFromShale.org (accessed Nov. 7, 2011):
"Fracking has emerged as a contentious issue
in many communities, and it is important to note
that there are only two sides in the debate:
those who want our oil and natural resources
developed in a safe and responsible way; and
those who dont want our oil and natural gas
resources developed at all. Development does
bring with it some challenges, but the oil and
natural gas industry has and will continue to
work with concerned citizens, regulators and
policy makers to make sure that it is done
responsibly."
Nov. 7, 2011 - American Petroleum Institute (API)

other environmental laws...


Each well requires the high-pressure injection of
a cocktail of nearly 600 chemicals, including
known carcinogens and neurotoxins, diluted in 1
million to 7 million gallons of water.
Coincidentally, a month before the blowout of
the gulf oil well, Energy and Environment Daily,
an independent publication, published a draft of
proposed language to exempt fracking from
chemical disclosure rules in pending Senate
energy and climate legislation. The primary
author? BP America Inc."
June 18, 2010 - Margot Roosevelt

Kevin Grandia, Director of Online Strategy at


Greenpeace USA, wrote in his June 28, 2010
article "What the Frack: Is Pumping Glass
Cleaner Into the Earth Okay?" on the Huffington
Post website:
"[N]atural gas extraction is a nasty business.
Hydraulic fracturing is the reason there is so
much money to be made in natural gas
nowadays... The problem is that while the
natural gas companies might think hydraulic
fracturing is great for their bottom line, the
process involves pumping thousands of gallons
of toxic chemicals down into the earth. While the
short-term financial upsides of fracking look
good on quarterly reports, the long-term costs of
the potential health and environmental damage
is speculative at best. What is certain is that
pumping thousands of gallons of toxic
chemicals deep into the planet is probably not a
good
thing...
I don't know what is more insidious, pumping
thousands of gallons of immunotoxicants,
mutagens, and other nasty things into our
planet's core, or the public relations spin the
natural gas companies try to put on all this by
listing these toxic agents as they are found in
common household goods... Pumping these
toxins into our earth is just plain fracked up and
it makes clean energy technologies from
unlimited sources like the sun and the wind that
much more sensible."

June 28, 2010 - Kevin Grandia

Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, has begun to rise in popularity over the
past few years. This practice of sending blasts of water, chemicals and sand beneath
the Earths surface to gain access to valuable natural gas and oil has become useful,
but there are pros and cons that must be weighed when deciding whether fracking is
something that society should come to rely upon.

List of Pros of Fracking


1. Access More Gas and Oil
Fracking allows us to access more natural gas and oil than ever before. As the worlds
supplies of these resources continue to dwindle, finding new methods to obtain
additional oil and gas becomes more and more important. Scientists estimate that these
resources will begin to run out during our lifetimes, so until we find a true replacement
fuel, fracking is likely here to stay.
2. Improved Air Quality
By using natural gas to generate electricity instead of coal, the resulting improvement
to air quality is easy to quantify. When natural gas is used, carbon dioxide emissions are
reduced significantly, which leads to a marked decrease in air pollution. Toxins that
would normally be released into the air are no longer a danger. Mercury and ash
emissions are also eradicated.
3. Decrease Dependency on Foreign Oil
Fracking also allows the United States to decrease its dependency on foreign oil. As
population continues to increase, with no end to the nations potentially crippling oil
addiction in sight, it pays to uncover more domestic sources for oil.
4. Lower Taxes
While continuing to raid every possible inch of the country for new oil sources will
certainly impeded attempts to wean the nation of its oil dependency, the positive
effects fracking has on taxes are not easily ignored. The security and peace of mind that
comes with knowing that there is a domestic oil supply is also helpful.
5. Increase Return on Investment
Conventional techniques of drilling do not produce the same results as fracking, which is
especially important as the United States looks for more unconventional oil and natural
gas sources. Drilling at less conventional sites necessitates the use of fracking, to
maximize return on investment.

List of Cons of Fracking


1. Lack of Exploring New Energy Sources
The main conflict between those who support fracking and those who do not is more of
a philosophical split. Fracking detractors claim that continuing to exploit every square
inch of the nation, in a desperate search for more natural gas and oil is only delaying

the inevitable. The belief that renewable energy should be taking priority over
discovering new sources of gas and oil is pervasive.
2. Water Droughts
Considering the fact that over half the nation is currently experiencing water droughts,
the concept of using massive amounts of water to probe underground for oil and gas
that may not even be available has given pause to many environmental observers.
3. Increased Pollution
Conventional drilling uses far less water, but is not always as effective. Fracking has
been linked to a decrease in water supplies in areas where it has been conducted. This
is especially true in instances where multiple darlings occur at the same site. There is
also concern about the increase in pollution to the water and air in the surrounding
areas where fracking takes place. Water supplies in fracking zones have been known to
show an increased presence of toxic chemicals.
In addition, these toxins are also released into the air, which leads to an increase in air
pollution. Waste water from fracking is almost impossible to fully dispose of. Anywhere
from 10 to 40 percent of fracking waste water flows back to the original drilling surface.
This could have far reaching long term consequences, as ground water supplies can
become contaminated.
4. Spread of Toxins
There is essentially no way for local communities to prepare themselves for specific
chemicals, as fracking companies are not required by law to provide a list of which
chemicals they will be using for the job. Scientists are also at a loss for predicting
potential downfalls, and emergency personnel are unprepared for accidents that could
occur.
5. Noise Pollution
Residents of areas where fracking takes place also have concerns about the effect that
the consistent presence of heavy vehicles has on their daily lives. These heavy vehicles
cause increased noise pollution in residential areas and turn them into industrial work
zones. Since fracking is conducted at all hours of the day and night, this causes
consternation for those who are affected by the additional light and noise.`

Pros and cons of fracking


There has been much debate recently about the advisability or otherwise of drilling for oil or gas deposits in
shale using the technique popularly known as fracking (more properly called hydraulic fracturing).
Supporters point to the transformation of the US energy market by the development of a domestic supply of
gas (including a sharp drop in wholesale prices) while opponents point out numerous economic and
environmental problems.

While it would be unwise to project exactly the same transformation of the energy market on this side of the
Atlantic if shale gas was to be fully exploited, it is equally unwise to block this on the basis of ill-informed
criticism. Fracking is neither new nor inherently more dangerous than other forms of mineral extraction.
And, on a parochial note, on-shore drilling for oil and gas is not new to the UK: more than 2,000 wells have
been drilled, with the first in 1902.
Conventionally, oil and gas are extracted by drilling straight down into deep reservoirs. Being under
pressure, they come to the surface naturally, although recovery rates can be increased by injection of water
or carbon dioxide. As the vast reserves in the US and Middle East have been depleted and oil prices have
risen, so it has become economic to drill in more difficult sites (eg, the North Sea and other deep water
fields) and exploit what are still referred to as unconventional sources.
These include the so-called tar sands in Canada, which require considerable heat energy to separate heavy
oil (and are still the subject of controversy as EU legislators would like to penalise their use) and oil- and
gas-bearing shale. In this case, the minerals are not found in highly porous rocks from which they flow
easily, but in the much smaller pores of shale, a sedimentary rock. Although drilling into this does not result
in a ready flow of oil or gas, such rocks are easily fractured, since they are laid down in thin strata which are
readily fractured.
This property is exploited by hydraulic fracturing, whereby water is forced into the rock at high pressure.
The other requirement is to keep the fractured structure open to recover gas or oil, so sand is injected with
the water to prop the larger fissures open. One criticism often levelled at fracking is that a toxic mix of
chemicals is pumped underground, which can lead to pollution. The fact that the exact composition of the
mixtures used is commercially confidential means, it is suggested, that drillers have a dirty secret to hide.
In practice, fracking is little different from conventional drilling which uses synthetic mud to lubricate the bit
and bring rock fragments to the surface. In the case of fracking, the basic mixture of water and sand has a
number of minor additives: a biocide (to prevent microbial growth) at about 0.01% and about 0.1% each of
a surfactant, a polymeric lubricant and a stabiliser. A significant proportion of the water used is recovered
and reused for subsequent fracking operations.
The other difference between recovering oil or gas from conventional reservoirs and shale beds is that,
whereas a handful of wells is normally sufficient to tap most of the conventional resource, each well drilled
into a shale bed collects from a relatively small volume around the length of the frack. This means that
individual wells produce for a relatively short time, but the solution is to bore multiple wells from a single
point. Because shale is laid down in horizontal beds, these wells are also drilled horizontally once the shale
has been reached. Much more detail about all the technology can be found in a Heartland Institute paper:
Hydraulic fracturing a game-changer for energy and economics.

This paper is very clearly pro-fracking, and it is undeniable that the American energy situation has been very
positively transformed. Manufacturing industry, for example, has been made considerably more competitive
by lower energy costs, gas has displaced coal as the preferred choice for electricity generation and LNG
import terminals are being turned into ports for export. But there is also plenty of opposition to shale gas,
which in the UK last year focussed on the activities on Caudrilla near the Dorset village of Balcombe (which,
interestingly did not include fracking, but facts are not always allowed to get in the way of a good protest).
Other negative claims are made, most controversially in the film Gasland. One of the key claims made in this
piece of activist film-making is of contamination of groundwater, with one scene showing flammable gas
coming from a water tap. But the US energy industry strongly refuted the claims made in the film, which
certainly seems to take worst case examples as typical and tries hard to damn the entire industry. Readers
who want to look further into both sides of this debate may like to go to this NYT article: Groundtruthing
Academy Award Nominee Gasland.
Critics rightly say that extracting shale gas in much of Europe could have more impact on local communities,
as population density is higher than across the Atlantic. However, it is not often recognised that the largest
on-shore oilfield in Western Europe is in Dorset, near Poole Harbour, which borders three nature reserves.
Even in Balcombe itself, a well was drilled very close to the last years in 1986, with no opposition.
Onshore oil and gas production need not cause problems, as the established well head is far less intrusive
(as well as more productive) than a wind turbine. Establishment of the well is different, of course. It is
estimated that there would be about 1,000 HGV movements during the drilling and fracturing process, which
should take no more than two months. However, a single wind turbine requires twice as many lorry
movements during its construction.
Another accusation is that fracking causes earthquakes. It is true that very small earth tremors were
detected when Caudrilla was drilling test wells near Blackpool a few years ago and the process was
temporarily stopped while these were investigated. However, talk of earthquakes is a gross exaggeration
(Fracking does cause earthquakes but you wont feel them) and conventional mining has a significantly
greater potential to cause problems.
The main reason behind objections to fracking is almost certainly the argument that exploiting more fossil
fuel reserves simply prolongs the effort to reduce emissions. However, the evidence in America is that gas
has displaced coal and given real benefits in terms of air pollution as well as reducing carbon dioxide output.
The conflict is really between a fundamentalist view that a complete change to renewable energy is needed
as soon as possible and a more realistic position that a secure, affordable energy supply is vital for modern
societies.

Gas is surely going to be an important part of the mix for many years to come, and a domestic source
cannot be ignored. The effect on energy costs may be modest, but security of supply and tax benefits are
not to be sniffed at. There is really no reason why properly regulated fracking should not proceed.

As editor and publisher of The Fracking Truth by Chris Faulkner (June 30, 2014, Platform
Press), I started out as an agnostic and have been convinced by facts and figures that as a
result of the widespread exploitation of this ancient-but-updated technology, the US "will
never run out of oil and natural gas," as the author believes. The energy revolution is
changing the world in so many ways that will become apparent in the months and years
ahead. First, the problems:
Cons: Fracking, like all energy extraction methods, is invasive and holds the potential for
"bad actors" to cause collateral environmental damage, as happened in the early days in
Pennsylvania in the Marcellus Shale. The explosion of oil and natural gas supplies in the US
will continue to tax our transportation infrastructure: pipelines, rail, truck routes, and so on.
And, as others have noted, there is the potential of a glut of supply that could depress prices
to the point that drillers and producers will stop drilling and producing, although demand is
expected to continue to soar worldwide. In some areas, drilling has become so prolific that
there is no place to store the gas and it is being flared off (burned), which is a waste and
also a source of pollution.
Pros: As a result of the fracking boom, the US has already surpassed Saudi Arabia in net
energy production. The US is well on its way to becoming energy self-sufficient, which
means declining imports, less chance of shipping accidents, and a huge dividend in the
reduction of capital being sent abroad to purchase our energy needs.
Many tens of billions have already been invested in Louisiana and Texas by the chemical
industry which uses massive amounts of natural gas in the manufacturing process. Some
manufacturers have begun re-homing production facilities from abroad and foreign
companies are investing in new plants here to take advantage of very low natural gas prices
here. In the US, natural gas prices are half to a third what they are in Europe and the Pacific
Rim.
Natural gas is forecast to eventually replace other motor fuels for many large fleet operators
(UPS, truckers, bus companies, etc.). Natural gas burns much cleaner than gasoline and
diesel, is cheaper, and does not have to transported halfway around the world with all the
risks associated with freighter transport.
Natural gas is also forecast to replace the dirtiest fuelcoalin the production of electricity.

Coal plants across the country are being idled or refitted. Natural gas is also easing any
pressure to expand nuclear generating capacity.
One of the biggest pros is that our shrinking reliance on foreign oil and natural gas means
the US is less prone to insert itself into global conflicts. It is highly likely in the opinion of
some experts that were current conditions existing in 2003, we would not have invested our
treasure and our young men and women in a war in Iraq. We will soon be free of fear that
Persian Gulf supplies will be cut off by a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
The UK has recently embraced fracking to access what are believed to be enormous
deposits in the north and the south. Poland is actively exploring fracking in an effort to free
itself from the Russian bear. The Chinese are experimenting with fracking but there are
enormous hurdles for them: lack of infrastructure, lack of water, hilly terrain versus the flat
plains of the US. The Japanese are busy investigating the exploitation of hydratesfrozen
deposits of methane on the ocean floors.
Fracking is a method that was discovered thousands of years ago. Today it has evolved to
the point that, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, a single well can draw from many miles around
thanks to horizontal drilling methods. Instead of dozens of wellheads, horizontal drilling
allows a single well-head to produce from dozens of deep, hidden horizontal bores, right
under the streets of major cities without any effect on quality of life.
Three cheers for the environmental movement for drawing attention to the potential for
damage by poorly-drilled wells. The US, unlike any other nation in the world, has the
ingenuity, the imperative, and the capital to refine this technology to use less and less water,
to do it more and more safely. The US, unlike any other nation, has 150 years of experience
exploiting hydrocarbons. We have the most extensive system of pipelines, storage facilities,
and so on.
Fracking, as one expert puts it, has given the US a second chance at economic security and
prosperity. We will in the years ahead become an exporter of energy and we will no longer
find ourselves going to war to preserve our access to affordable sources. As much proven
reserves as we have discovered in the past few years, it's likely we are sitting on so much
energy that we will never run out even as we discover new technologies to generate the
energy we need with less pollution and disruption of the environment. We are becoming
more energy efficient every day, which will only help reduce our dependence on
hydrocarbons.
Touch anything around you right now and you are touching products that require oil and

natural gas. Air conditioning at the touch of a switch, the ability to drive at will, fly around the
world, cook a meal, perform an operation, paint your house, etc., etc. Hydrocarbons are
here to stay and since we need them for the foreseeable future, fracking is a leasttroublesome solution compared with coal, nuclear, importing oil and gas.
December 6, 2014, Wall Street Journal: The Oilman to Thank at Your Next Fill-Up, Mark
Papa, retired CEO of EOG Resourcestheres been a million frack jobs performed in the
U.S. with zero documented cases of damage to the drinking-water table. For my set of
statistics, those are pretty good odds.
The Fracking Truth: The Untold, Inside Story of the Energy Revolution, by Chris Faulkner.
Platform Press.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an innovative and cost-saving process for drilling oil
and gas from rock formations far underground, and is a booming industry in Michigan.
Proponents say fracking is safe and note its positive impact on the state economy. Critics
say the process carries risks, both known and unknown, to Michigans water supply and
public health and should be more closely monitored by regulatory agencies.
Pros

There are enough fossil fuels locked in bedrock shale formations under North
American soil to make the United States energy independent, and a net exporter
of oil and gas, in the near future.

Tapping those energy sources would make the United States less dependent,
economically and politically, on unstable countries such as Venezuela and the
Middle East. It would also enable the West to be less dependent on Russian
natural gas, which Vladimir Putin currently uses as a political lever.

The natural gas industry claims that fracking is safe because the shale formations
lie far below the water table and pose a minimal threat to groundwater. They also

claim that drilling for oil and gas is nothing new: weve been drilling for oil and
gas for decades.

Using natural gas to heat our homes and power our cars releases far fewer carbon
emissions than coal. Proponents describe the growing natural gas industry as an
environmentally pragmatic bridge fuel that will buy time until we can harness
the power of wind, solar and hydro on a mass scale.

In places like Kalkaska County, the oil and gas industry is big business, providing
hundreds of jobs. Many of those contractor and subcontractor jobs are tied to
fracking.

Cons

Because fracking involves pumping a concoction of water, sand and chemicals


into the ground to break apart the bedrock, environmentalists and private
landowners worry that those chemicals could reach, and poison, the
groundwater.

Companies are not required to disclose the chemicals they use, or the formula of
the mixture, in the process. That makes it difficult for local residents, or first
responders, to prepare for an accident or emergency, and difficult for scientists to
gauge the threat posed by the chemicals.

In Michigan, as many as 35 million gallons of freshwater are removed from


nearby aquifers per frack well the highest rate in the nation. The Anglers of the
Au Sable, a Michigan environmental conservation group, and others, worry that

this will deplete freshwater sources and potentially dry up rivers and streams that
are key to Michigans ecological health.

Water for fracking is typically transported to well sites using heavy trucks, which
turn pristine rural areas into industrial highways. The fracking, itself, is
conducted day and night, causing both noise and light pollution for some nearby
residents.

The stakes are rising. According to environmental groups, energy company


Encanas push for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to allow
resource play hubs (multiple drilling wells from the same site) could
exponentially deplete the local water supply.

Sources:
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001732
http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/
http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/
http://scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/pros-and-cons-fracking

The Fracking Truth by Chris Faulkner (June 30, 2014, Platform Press)
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-fracking

Fracking: The pros and cons of the booming and controversial extraction
processThe Center for Michigan | Bridge Magazine
on May 20, 2014 at 2:05 PM, updated May 20, 2014 at 2:09 PM

You might also like