Fracking, the process of extracting valuable natural gas from the Earth, has become an important procedure in the northeastern United States in the past years. This is primarily due to new technology that allows us to reach deeper into shale formations such as Marcellus, which stretches from New York to West Virginia. Such extraction has fueled a profitable natural gas revolution in the country, which has also created controversy over the years that the process contaminates groundwater and leaks methane into the atmosphere. Although this process may have an environmental impact - a woman's backyard exploded in Pennsylvania due to rising natural gas - a study done by the national science foundation stated that there was "no irrefutable evidence" that fracking causes an increase in methane levels across parts of Pennsylvania. In this region, New York State completely outlaws fracking while Pennsylvania regulates but allows it. Methane levels across the region are similar in the fracked Pennsylvania counties when compared with the unfracked wells in New York. The study said the same about the groundwater: There has been little to no direct contamination of the groundwater in Pennsylvania, although it is true that since the industry is young we have to wait and see. Although methane leaks and groundwater pollution are what come to mind when one thinks of the pollution associated with it, the biggest factor that if handled poorly can impact a local environment is the cement casing surrounding the well. If this lining is not put into place properly, the gas or groundwater can leak around the casing and affect the environment. The procedures put into place regulate this, especially in Pennsylvania, as well as the way in which used water is recycled rather than replaced into the wells. Such management of the possible pollution vastly prevents environmental tragedy, something that has often occurred throughout the state in the cases of mismanagement. According to this study, then, the process if done right can have little to no impact on the environment. Such a peachy outlook has been met with opposition, primarily from Robert Jackson of Duke University. He claims that since levels pre-fracking were not appropriately measured, it is hard to determine whether or not methane levels are drastically increasing. Furthermore, he believes that it is too early to make assumptions although he agrees with the solution that additional monitoring must be put into place. Pennsylvania's industries have been keeping pace with monitoring and disposing of the wastes related to fracking, although future predictions are met with skepticism due to once again the infancy of the process and industry. As long as businesses remain within the guidelines, levels are closely monitored, and all environmental reactions are studied, we should be able to avoid the environmental disaster of mid-century coal-mining that the state still copes with today.
Personally, I feel that fracking has the potential to pose a massive environmental risk to the Pennsylvania region, as Robert Jackson feels (due to the infancy of the industry). However, I believe that fracking also has the potential to revive local economies and open us up to new worlds of natural gas energy, which is much cleaner than oil or coal. If regulated well and implemented properly, the impact of this keystone revolution on the environment can be diminished if not eliminated.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-fracking-be-done-without-impacting-water
But David, just because getting the fuel is safe, as determined so far, isn't the burning of it still going to wreak havoc on the Ozone layer?
ReplyDeleteBut since natural gas emits less than coal or oil, it would benefit our national carbon emissions if we replaced old energy sources with natural gas, which would be the opposite of wreaking havoc on the ozone.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you, David, that fracking has the potential to revive local economies but at what cost? Some of these oil rigs are set up in people’s back yards. You would think that oil and gas industries could not drill on private property but they can if they can obtain the mineral rights. There are hundreds of instances where fracking has had harmful impacts upon communities and the surrounding environments. September of 2009 almost all of the aquatic life in Dunkard Creek, which flows into the Monongahela River near the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border, was wiped out. It was estimated that 10,000 fish died along a 30 mile stretch. According to American Rivers, a conservation group says that the cause was due to a “toxic golden algae bloom”. This algae bloom occurred due to the dumping of mining wastewater in to the water system. This is only one account of the negative effects of fracking. You can find more accounts at http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states. To read the original article for the incident at Dunkard Creek refer to, http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/press-releases/2010/monongahela-river-most-endangered-2010-6-2-2010.html.
ReplyDeleteVery well said, Logan. Just because money is involved does not mean that we should definitely do it. Incidents like Dunkard Creek may be rare, but they are also very dangerous and very critical to the well-being of the environment. The earth is fragile to human manipulation, and by killing all those fish, the local wildlife was badly damaged because it hurt other animals in the food web. The money is not worth the risk, especially since lives (both human and other lives) are at risk to die. It doesn't matter that local economies can be stimulated, because after what happened at Dunkard Creek, both the economy and the environment were damaged because of the negative effects of fracking.
DeleteWhile the Dunkard Creek disaster is certainly a tragedy for the locality, as well as every single one of those instances listed, fracking's potential still outweighs the environmental cost, for a number of reasons. First, it's all not just about the immediate profit. As mentioned in the article, fracking specifically is a fledgling process that is forever being tweaked. The errors committed in these early years are bound to happen, due to such new technology. But as this process continues, new and safer means of extraction can be discovered, and these can only be gained by experience. Cessation of mining for natural gas in PA and other states possesses a massive opportunity cost; our energy that could have been clean natural gas would remain generated by coal and oil, some of which would be imported from Russia (5%) or Saudi Arabia (13%) which hardly practice clean extraction or even human rights, for that matter. It took NASA years to develop a successful rocket, and had they stopped they never would have made it to the moon. If we do the same with fracking, who knows what we would be giving up? We would be sitting on untapped oceans of semi-clean energy while local economies would continue to stagnate. This in turn would lead to decreased tax revenue that could go towards further environmental research. In other words, too much protection leads to too little progress in every sector of humanity.
DeleteI understand that by tapping into natural gas reserves could be a huge economical point for the whole country but as I asked you before, at what cost? How many human life's is fracking really worth? From reading your article and several others it seems to me that the production of fracking has increased. From the previous website that I posted it shows incidents of fracking that have occurred, tragically effecting the environment and the people involved. I completely agree with you that a profit has to be made but until the technology is perfected to where there are no harsh repercussions due to fracking, then it should be tested and used on a smaller scale. When the technology is improved and there is a smaller chance of a catastrophe happening then it would be safe to say that the technology could be implemented to gain a big profit. Although natural gas is a "semi clean" energy source, there are other alternatives, which include include wind and solar. Resources such as natural gas are finite. There will come a point and time when they run out. It would be wiser to pursue other alternatives that could meet our energy needs without the pollution. Do you want to pass the problem of dirty energy sources onto your children?
ReplyDeleteIt is true that natural gas is not completely clean, but right now America has a ravenous addiction to oil. A complete switch to wind and solar would not work, as the energy generated from them is not enough to match that from fossil fuels. Furthermore, the complete closure of coal and oil plants would wreck local economies, livelihoods, and services due to decreased tax revenue. Natural gas would not only reduce the burden of these "dirty" plant closures, but provide a stepping stone down. Think of it as America's nicotine patch or e-cigarette. We have enough to last a century- enough time to perfect ultra-clean technology and put it to widespread use. An example of this is converting automobiles to natural gas. It just isn't viable to completely go from oil and coal to wind and solar in a huge leap. So no, we wouldn't be leaving dirty energy sources to future generations, we would be softening the blow of changing energy sources while retaining America's energy independence.
ReplyDelete