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 coal-

fired 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 co-

author 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.

There’s 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 children’s 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.

We’re not talking here about global warming, and “deniers” versus “warmists.” We’re

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 they’ll describe the

modern miracle of America’s 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 America’s 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 there’s 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. It’s 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; it’s 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, methane’s

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 that’s not the fracking

– that’s just a matter of making sure that the steel tubing, the casing, is not leaking and

that the cement around it doesn’t have cracks. Certain geologies, such as those in

Pennsylvania’s 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 it’s 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. We’ve

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 it’s worth remembering that drilling operations and rigs

don’t go on forever – it’s 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, it’s 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, we’re 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.

We’ve 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.

There’s 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 country’s 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. Industry’s 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 nation’s clean energy future. Recent advances in drilling technologies—including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—have made vast reserves of natural gas economically recoverable in the US. Responsible development of America’s 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, 2011 editorial "The Facts About Fracking":

Robert W. Howarth, PhD, Profesor of Ecology 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 production—that 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 risk-taking. 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 

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 Nation’s 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

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 nation’s 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 

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 business-information 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 aren’t as well known, but the effect of fracking on global energy production will be huge.

Global warming is a serious issue that fracking-related gas production can help to alleviate... Mankind’s inexorable march towards 9 billion people will require a broad portfolio of energy resources, which can be gained only with breakthroughs such as fracking...

Global warming aside, there is no compelling environmental reason to ban hydraulic fracturing. There are environmental risks, but these can be managed through existing, and rapidly improving, technologies and regulations.

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 impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.

Yet what the industry and its defenders demand 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.

The gains in employment, economics and national security, combined with the potential to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions if natural gas is managed properly, make a compelling case."

Sep. 14, 2011 - Terry Engelder, PhD 

Timothy J. Considine, PhD, Director of the Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at the University of Wyoming, wrote in his June 7, 2011 paper "The Economic Opportunities of Shale Energy Development" for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research:

"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 be uneconomic...

[T]he net economic benefits of shale drilling in the Marcellus are considerably positive while the environmental impact of the typical Marcellus well is relatively low...

[T]he probability of an environmental event is small and that those that do occur are minor and localized in their effects... [T]he potential economic benefits of shale gas exploration greatly exceed the potential environmental impacts..."

June 7, 2011 - Timothy J. Considine, PhD 

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

for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed 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 way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.'

So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment 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 because they claim it will be a winner.

So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true."

Nov. 6, 2011 - Paul Krugman, PhD 

Margot Roosevelt, staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, wrote in her June 18, 2010 article "Gulf Oil Spill Worsens--But What About the Safety of Gas Fracking?":"Imagine a siege of hydrocarbons spewing from deep below ground, polluting water and air, sickening animals and threatening the health of unsuspecting Americans. And no one knows how long it will last.

No, we're not talking about BP's gulf oil spill. We're talking about hydraulic fracturing of natural gas deposits. And if that phrase makes your eyes glaze over, start blinking them open. Fracking, as the practice is also known, may be 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...

[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 don’t 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 Earth’s 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 OilFracking allows us to access more natural gas and oil than ever before. As the world’s 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 QualityBy 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 OilFracking also allows the United States to decrease its dependency on foreign oil. As population continues to increase, with no end to the nation’s potentially crippling oil addiction in sight, it pays to uncover more domestic sources for oil.

4. Lower TaxesWhile 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 InvestmentConventional 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 SourcesThe 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 DroughtsConsidering 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 PollutionConventional 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 ToxinsThere 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 PollutionResidents 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 year’s 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 won’t 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 fuel—coal—in 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 hydrates—frozen 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 least-troublesome 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 Resources—“there’s 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 Michigan’s 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: we’ve 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 Michigan’s

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 Encana’s 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