Fracking (or, more exactly, hydraulic fracturing). We\’ve all heard about how terrible fracking is.
Our media, always happy to pass along the latest leftward meme has told us over and over again how it destroys the environment – with the other side (and be assured that there is one), which claims there is little in the way of negative environmental impact, relegated to right wing web sites — where it can be dismissed on the grounds that it is only on right wing web sites.
At this point I will post a short defense of fracking from David Simmons, Director of State Affairs for the Institute of Energy Research – an advocacy group which supports the procedure (you can read his entire piece by clicking here). I do this not to sway your opinion, but just so you have some idea of what the other side of the argument is – which, it is entirely likely, you have never seen before:
Since 1947, hydraulic fracturing has been used to extract morethan 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion feet of natural gasfrom deep underground shale formations.
Therecent combination of fracturing technology with directionaldrilling—meaning six to eight horizontal wells drilled from onlyone well pad—can produce the same volume as 16 vertical wells. Thishas decreased the surface impact of drilling operations while growingour domestic reserves substantially. In…just one year\’s time, we expanded our access todomestic natural gas by 66 percent.
Theeconomic benefits of the shale gas boom have been similarly great. In2008, after the innovation gave way to a surge in resources, thewellhead price of natural gas plummeted from nearly $8 per thousandcubic feet to $3.67 per thousand cubic feet. Additionally, theadvent of shale gas has given rise to enormous economic opportunitiesin places like Pennsylvania, where development of the Marcellus Shaleis projected to create more than 111,000 jobs in 2011 with $10billion added to the state\’s economy.
Despitethe fact that hydraulic fracturing has been employed for half acentury at comparable depths of thousands of feet, opponents ofnatural gas insist that groundwater is now being contaminated. Thisclaim, no matter how many times it is repeated, lacks substantivedata to support its conclusions as both the national association ofstate groundwater agencies and the multistate governmental agencyrepresenting states\’ oil and gas interests have found no evidence ofgroundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids.
And, in the interests of fairness, you can click here for an impassioned argument against fracking, presented by Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. Here is the key part of her argument:
Arecognized problem this poses is that each fracked well producesmillions of gallons of highly contaminated wastewater, yet there areno currently operating facilities that remove all of thesepollutants. Less understood is that fracking is destroying ourgroundwater, and there is no way to prevent it. Drilled wells providepathways for these contaminants to rise under pressure and mix withfreshwater aquifers, causing these deep geology pollutants to minglewith shallow groundwater. The cement and steel casings used and theplugging methods for post-production gas wells do not isolatemethane, other dangerous gases, and pressure-driven contaminatedfluids from the aquifer. The zonal isolation will be breached eitherinstantly due to poor construction; in a period of years, due toharsh downhole conditions eating away the cement and steel; or, ifbest available technology is employed, within 80 to 100 years–it isnot a question of “if,” it is a question of “when.”The industry is well aware of this, as are regulators. Apparently,they have decided to sacrifice our groundwater.
Ok. So we know that opponents claim fracking causes godawful environmental damage, and proponents say there is no substantial proof of that, and fracking has a huge economic benefit. I\’ll leave it to you to decide which argument makes more sense.
But, with both on the table, I would also like you to think about what the enormous increase in energy production from fracking has meant to us:
-Natural gas prices have dropped by more than 50% – a huge boon to consumers;
-It has created a great many new jobs – estimates range to over 100,000;
-We are that much less energy-dependent on other countries, including countries which make it plain they hate our guts;
-The drop in energy prices has significantly affected revenues of those countries – which, since far too much of those revenues goes into the pockets of a fabulously rich few, and far too little goes toward improving the lives of their people, is not at all a bad thing;
-Russia, in particular, is slowed down because about 2/3 of its total exports is energy-related. This significant drop in energy revenues might force Putin to rein in his attempts to recreate the USSR (which is certainly more than President Obama has been able to do).
Is that enough information about fracking for the day? I hope so, because this blog is now finished.
All I ask is you think about all sides before coming to any conclusions.
