Should We Ban Fracking?
Here’s a wonderful, well-balanced discussion on an extremely important subject: placing a ban on fracking. As the author correctly states, natural gas is often used to offset coal, which, as he explains, represents double the greenhouse gas emissions per BTU as compared to gas. What he may have wanted to add, however, is that CO2 and methane are only two of the many issues with coal; we need to include the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, cadmium, mercury, selenium, arsenic and a host of different radioactive isotopes.
The larger question, of course, is this: Regardless of what restrictions we place on fracking here and now, do we have an energy plan in place that explicitly calls for phasing out all fossil fuels as rapidly as practically possible? The answer, of course, is no. Our congress, owned as it is by Big Energy, is a million miles from creating such a policy and agreeing to the laws that would support it.
Energy policy is clearly a complex issue. As such it is possible to emphasize some of what we know and come to divergent perspectives. It is also possible for some to cling to old knowledge that has since become outdated.
I live in an area that has banned fracking. In this case it may have been largely due to the area in question also holding the water supply for one of the largest cities in the country. I have listened to local media and have had discussions with a prominent member of the EPA committee for the local city council and followed my own independent research. While it could easily be suggested that this could skewed information against fracking it could also argued that such an environment might also provide additional insights.
While the concept of fracking has been around for almost 150 years and it has been used for oil wells, geothermal wells and gas wells, hydraulic fracking really took off after national laws were passed exempting gas wells from EPA water regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemptions_for_hydraulic_fracturing_under_United_States_federal_law At the very least this has lead to a lack of transparency and fewer studies of the effects of fracking on ground water contamination.
Some studies put the amount of gas recoverable after fracking at 1% to 2% while other studies put the number as high as 30%. Some of 70% balance may remain locked underground, but it is in the nature of fracking to destabilize the ground. This has caused increased Earthquakes ( which may be largely due to injection wells of waste water ) There is also growing evidence that fracking wells allow once trapped and sequestered methane to rise to the surface and enter the atmosphere. An estimate for the 4 points area of the country is 600 million tones of methane released to the atmosphere each year.
There are additional large leaks of methane associated with fracking in Texas and Pennsylvania. It has been estimated that if just 3% of the methane recovered leaks then this more than outweighs the benefits of using natural gas over coal in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. Limited studies have shown that leaking in at some sites is between 4% and 9%. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0623/Methane-leaks-of-shale-gas-may-undermine-its-climate-benefits
At the very least we need more information, but present information does not look promising. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/inquiring-minds-anthony-ingraffea-science-fracking-methane The essential question is if the leaking is from recovery practices which might be corrected or the inherent nature of fracking which should then be banned.
Natural gas, as a gas, is cleaner than coal, but it also has the drawback of being more volatile. In its use coal can release many pollutants into the environment but methane, the primary component of natural gas is an extremely potent greenhouse gas before we even use it for energy. Even more deceptive, we can’t smell or see it as a pollutant in its natural state.
I applaud the attempt to find a “cleaner” fossil fuel. But like most “bargains with the devil,” substituting natural gas for coal may be a bargain where we are losing more than we gain.
Craig asks if we have a choice? This may seem a valid argument but I wonder how many driving down a hill through a canyon toward an inevitable cliff would press on the accelerator. Perhaps we might consider slowing down to take a longer and more careful look to see if there are really no alternatives. Perhaps it is time to stop the car and take a good look around to get our bearings (and sense of sanity) once again. I do know this. When someone is trying to convince you of their suggested course of action one thing you frequently hear is that “you have no choice.”