Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.`
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
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.
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.
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