What the Frick is Going on with Fracking?

What the Frick is Going on with Fracking?

An Investigation into Energy Use

"Wikimedia Upload." Wikimedia Upload. N.p., n.d.Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

What is Fracking?

Before we delve into the effects and practicality of fracking, it is important to first understand what fracking is. Fracking is the process of drilling into the earth to form a well, then propelling a mixture (composed mostly of water) to break the shale shelf. When the shale breaks, it releases natural gas trapped below the earth, as the natural gas escapes it is harvested (1). Fracking is a highly efficient, low cost approach to capturing natural gas in mass quantities. However, fracking can also poison the ground and nearby water sources, creating environmental havoc. The term "fracking" is an abbreviation for hydraulic fracturing, but gained popularity as a name for the process as fracking gained notoriety in the news. 

Why is Fracking Controversial?

Fracking is not inherently bad, it is not some evil system of mining for natural gas that automatically destroys the environment around it. The issue surrounds a fluctuating rate of failure, and when it fails, fracking can displace masses of wildlife and people. While a study at Cornell warns that 40% of the fracking wells in Pennsylvania (specifically the Marcellus Shale Region) will most probably leak methane or other harmful chemicals, it also notes that only around 6% of the wells that are currently active have leaked (2). What does this mean? Are we on the precipice of fracking induced destruction? Is 6% larger than it appears? One of the main problems with the issue of fracking is that it is difficult to answer those questions in a completely decisive way. 

"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lowest in 20 Years, Thanks to Natural Gas."ExxonMobils Perspectives

 Blog Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lowest in 20 Years Thanks to Natural Gas Comments. N.p., n.d. 

Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

Fracking: A Solution

"
Fracking Lies, Myths and Statistics: BS Detector." Fracking Lies, 

Myths and Statistics: BS Detector.N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

First off lets look at the positives of fracking; what is the appeal? Fracking is low cost, speedy, low carbon impacting, and extremely profitable business. It has had an undeniable effect on establishing the U.S as a provider of natural gas, allowing businesses to tap into the national abundance. Natural gas use lowers international dependence on other countries for energy, allowing the U.S to hold more cards in the game of diplomacy. Furthermore, techniques such as fracking have allowed an immense increase in the  harvesting of hydrocarbons, so much so that the price of oil has dramatically plummeted (3). Natural gas also has a much lower degenerative effect on the environment, as burning it is near harmless. We have reached a 20 year low in CO2 emissions, arguably from the increased use of natural gas as a cleaner alternative. As use of natural gas goes up, the use of coal and other more poisoned energy forms go down, a point that will later be explored into more detail. Other than the oddly climate beneficial effect (take note of the word climate, not environment), fracking helps the American economy. It has been predicted that natural gas will spark a 3% increase in the US's GDP by 2020, as well as creating a predi-cted 3.6 million jobs (4). With statistics like this, it is hard to see why fracking could be bad; but it is important to note that this is a part of the problem surrou-nding fracking, it is a polarizing technique with very definitive pros and cons.

Fracking: A Wrecking Ball

"These concerns include the potential for groundwater and surface-water pollution, local air quality degradation, fugitive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, induced seismicity, ecosystem fragmentation, and various community impacts. However, the scale of hydraulic fracturing operations is much larger than for conventional exploration onshore. Moreover ... [drilling] often literally in people’s backyards." -Annual Review of Environment and Resources (5)

As stated in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, there is a vast array of complaints that stem from fracking. The first is water pollution due to cracks in the wells that can cause the water mixture used in fracking to poison the local aquifers and bodies of water. The water mixture contains many toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that when ingested or introduced to the water supply can prove catastrophic. When this occurs, wildlife suffers and families are often forced to move, scarring the environment. Similarly, fracking can release these deadly chemicals into the air, dispersing into the air quality of the area (6). While fracking and natural gas are better than other hydrocarbons, natural gas is ultimately still more dangerous than solar or other clean energy sources. Fracking has also been blamed for increasing the rate of earthquakes due to its destructive breaking of shale formations, loosing the rock and leaving areas more susceptible to seismic activity (7). Lastly, the physical closeness of these dangerous effects to environmental systems and communities poses a substantial threat. Fracking is not a light matter, posing serious environmental, ethical, and life threatening dangers.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2011,

Tables 1.3, 2.1b-2.1f , 10.3, and 10.4.

 The Prologue Ends Pt. 1: What is the Chart of Energy Consumption?

At first, this graph appears to be very complex, but upon further inspection it becomes increasingly simple. The right side sources are the different medians used to generate power. The sources are in descending order of use, with the most used being petroleum and the least being nuclear electric power. On the opposite side of the sources are the sectors. Sectors are general divisions within an economy. The lines connecting each are percentage lines. These show the percent used and the percent given, respectively sectors and sources. For those reading this who already understand what this infographic means and question why I spelt out what each aspect of it meant, the information locked within this graph is incredibly important.  Having a graph is step 1, understanding the graph is step 2.

The Prologue Ends Pt. 2: Analysis of the Chart of Energy Consumption 

When I first looked at the source side, my eyes zeroed in on natural gas. Why is this chart important in relation to fracking and the course society should take with handling it? Natural gas is in second place for the most used, demonstrating the point that it has become established as an essential aspect of energy consumption in the United States. While one could argue that fracking should be banned for its environmental effects, it is hard to rationalize this in front of the statistics saying that natural gas is effectively the second most needed resource in regards to energy consumption. Fracking is an essential process the cheapness, accessibility, and usability of natural gas in the United States. By banning its extraction method, natural gas prices would soar; thus ultimately hurting the Residential and Commercial Sector the most because it currently gets 75% of its energy from natural gas. Banning is unnecessarily harsh, as we earlier noted that the actual percent of leaks is relatively small (6% in Pennsylvania). However, that does not mean the current state of fracking wells is ideal. It could be argued that stricter regulation (checking wells to ensure that they are appropriately sealed and maintained), preventative legislation (confines are how close to people the wells can get as to reduce the possibility of forcing families away), and prosecution for damages (strengthen punishments for violations) would each help round out the issues surrounding fracking. Regardless of the pivotal role fracking plays in the current state of the American economy, lets say, hypothetically, we ban fracking. In return, a different source of energy is turned to. We would not be able to fill the void with petroleum as the price would increase without the check of abundant natural gas. The next place to turn to would be coal, an incredibly high CO2 emitting hydrocarbon that would do far more damage to the atmosphere than natural gas. Banning fracking ultimately hurts each aspect that banning it would be good. If you want to ban fracking to save the environment, it hurts far more to reinstate coal as a primary energy source due to its disastrous effects on the atmosphere. Banning fracking would destroy the delicate balance of energy we have reached. 

"Maps: Exploration, Resources, Reserves, and Production - Energy Information
Administration." Maps: Exploration, Resources, Reserves, and Production -
 Energy Information Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

Looking to the Future: Brighter, Gustier, Cleaner?

Is banning fracking a viable way to fix the issues it causes with the environment? Absolutely not. Natural gas is an efficient, effective, and cheap alternative to harsher hydrocarbons. However, this is not the final state of energy consumption. For the moment these points stand true, fracking is too essential to the economic success of our nation, as well as serving as a type of buffer on hydrocarbon emission. But as clean energy continues to make strides, it is not unreasonable to hope for the eventual implementation of a fracking free world. Till then, chose the shale region you live on wisely. 

Citations:

(1) "What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial? - BBC News." BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
(2) "Four of 10 Wells Forecast to Fail in Northeastern Pa. | Cornell Chronicle." Four of 10 Wells Forecast to Fail in Northeastern Pa. | Cornell Chronicle. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.
(3) "10 Reasons Fracking Improves American Lives - Drillinginfo." Drillinginfo. N.p., 05 Oct. 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

(4) "America's Energy Seen Adding 3.6 Million Jobs Along With 3% GDP."Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

(5)  Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014. 39:327–62
(6) 2014, December. Fracking Fumes: Air Pollution from Hydraulic Fracturing Threatens Public Health and Communities (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

(7) "Injection-Induced Earthquakes." Injection-Induced Earthquakes. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.