THE FACTS ON FRACKING

By SUSAN L. BRANTLEY and ANNA MEYENDORFFMARCH 13, 2013

Credit Cristbal Schmal

OPPOSITION to fracking has been considerable, if not unanimous, in the global green community,
and in Europe in particular. France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in
Europe, have already banned fracking. Protesters are blocking potential drilling sites in Poland and
England. Opposition to fracking has entered popular culture with the release of The Promised Land,
starring Matt Damon. Even the Rolling Stones have weighed in with a reference to fracking in their
new single, Doom and Gloom.

Do the facts on fracking support this opposition?

There is no doubt that natural gas extraction does sometimes have negative consequences for the
local environment in which it takes place, as does all fossil fuel extraction. And because fracking
allows us to put a previously inaccessible reservoir of carbon from beneath our feet into the
atmosphere, it also contributes to global climate change.

But as we assess the pros and cons, decisions should be based on existing empirical evidence and
fracking should be evaluated relative to other available energy sources.

What exactly is fracking, or more formally hydraulic fracturing?

Many sandstones, limestones and shales far below ground contain natural gas, which was formed as
dead organisms in the rock decomposed. This gas is released, and can be captured at the surface for
our use, when the rocks in which it is trapped are drilled. To increase the flow of released gas, the
rocks can be broken apart, or fractured. Early drillers sometimes detonated small explosions in the
wells to increase flow. Starting in the 1940s, oil and gas drilling companies began fracking rock by
pumping pressurized water into it.

Natural Gas (Fracking)

Approximately one million American wells have been fracked since the 1940s. Most of these are
vertical wells that tap into porous sandstone or limestone. Since the 1990s, however, gas companies
have been able to harvest the gas still stuck in the original shale source. Fracking shale is
accomplished by drilling horizontal wells that extend from their vertical well shafts along thin,
horizontal shale layers.

This horizontal drilling has enabled engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water
directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas. Chemicals added to the water
dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures.

Most opponents of fracking focus on potential local environmental consequences. Some of these are
specific to the new fracking technology, while others apply more generally to natural gas extraction.

The fracking cocktail includes acids, detergents and poisons that are not regulated by federal laws but
can be problematic if they seep into drinking water. Fracking since the 1990s has used greater
volumes of cocktail-laden water, injected at higher pressures. Methane gas can escape into the
environment out of any gas well, creating the real though remote possibility of dangerous explosions.
Water from all gas wells often returns to the surface containing extremely low but measurable
concentrations of radioactive elements and huge concentrations of salt. This brine can be detrimental
if not disposed of properly. Injection of brine into deep wells for disposal has in rare cases triggered
small earthquakes.

In addition to these local effects, natural gas extraction has global environmental consequences,
because the methane gas that is accessed through extraction and the carbon dioxide released during
methane burning are both greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. New fracking
technologies allow for the extraction of more gas, thus contributing more to climate change than
previous natural gas extraction.

As politicians in Europe and the United States consider whether, and under what conditions, fracking
should be allowed, the experience of Pennsylvania is instructive. Pennsylvania has seen rapid
development of the Marcellus shale, a geological formation that could contain nearly 500 trillion cubic
feet of gas enough to power all American homes for 50 years at recent rates of residential use.

Some of the local effects of drilling and fracking have gotten a lot of press but caused few problems,
while others are more serious. For example, of the tens of thousands of deep injection wells in use by
the energy industry across the United States, only about eight locations have experienced injection-
induced earthquakes, most too weak to feel and none causing significant damage.

The Pennsylvania experience with water contamination is also instructive. In Pennsylvania, shale gas
is accessed at depths of thousands of feet while drinking water is extracted from depths of only
hundreds of feet. Nowhere in the state have fracking compounds injected at depth been shown to
contaminate drinking water.

In one study of 200 private water wells in the fracking regions of Pennsylvania, water quality was the
same before and soon after drilling in all wells except one. The only surprise from that study was that
many of the wells failed drinking water regulations before drilling started. But trucking and storage
accidents have spilled fracking fluids and brines, leading to contamination of water and soils that had
to be cleaned up. The fact that gas companies do not always disclose the composition of all fracking
and drilling compounds makes it difficult to monitor for injected chemicals in streams and
groundwater.

Pennsylvania has also seen instances of methane leaking into aquifers in regions where shale-gas
drilling is ongoing. Some of this gas is drift gas that forms naturally in deposits left behind by the
last glaciation. But sometimes methane leaks out of gas wells because, in 1 to 2 percent of the wells,
casings are not structurally sound. The casings can be fixed to address these minor leaks, and the
risk of such methane leaks could further decrease if casings were designed specifically for each
geological location.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The disposal of shale gas brine was initially addressed in Pennsylvania by allowing the industry to use
municipal water treatment plants that were not equipped to handle the unhealthy components. Since
new regulations in 2011, however, Pennsylvania companies now recycle 90 percent of this briny
water by using it to frack more shale.

In sum, the experience of fracking in Pennsylvania has led to industry practices that mitigate the
effect of drilling and fracking on the local environment.

And while the natural gas produced by fracking does add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere
through leakage during gas extraction and carbon dioxide release during burning, it in fact holds a
significant environmental advantage over coal mining. Shale gas emits half the carbon dioxide per
unit of energy as does coal, and coal burning also emits metals such as mercury into the atmosphere
that eventually settle back into our soils and waters.

Europe is currently increasing its reliance on coal while discouraging or banning fracking. If we are
going to get our energy from hydrocarbons, blocking fracking while relying on coal looks like a bad
trade-off for the environment.

So, should the United States and Europe encourage fracking or ban it? Short-run economic interests
support fracking. In the experience of Pennsylvania, natural gas prices fall and jobs are created both
directly in the gas industry and indirectly as regional and national economies benefit from lower
energy costs. Europe can benefit from lessons learned in Pennsylvania, minimizing damage to the
local environment.

The geopolitical shift that would result from decreasing reliance on oil, and more specifically on
Russian oil and gas, is one that European politicians might not want to ignore. And if natural gas
displaces coal, then fracking is good not only for the economy but also for the global environment.

But if fracked gas merely displaces efforts to develop cleaner, non-carbon, energy sources without
decreasing reliance on coal, the doom and gloom of more rapid global climate change will be realized.

Susan Brantley is distinguished professor of geosciences and director of the Earth and
Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences. Anna Meyendorff is a faculty associate at the International Policy Center of
the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, and a manager at Analysis Group.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of
Pennsylvania State University, the University of Michigan, or Analysis Group.

General Reference (not clearly pro or con)

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 countrys 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. Industrys 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."

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 nations clean energy future. Recent advances in drilling
technologiesincluding horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturinghave made vast reserves of
natural gas economically recoverable in the US. Responsible development of Americas 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)

The Wall Street Journal wrote in its June 25, 2011 editorial "The Facts About Fracking":

"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 productionthat 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
Nations 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 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 arent 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...
Mankinds 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. 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 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 dont 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)

CON (no)

Robert W. Howarth, PhD, Profesor of Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell University, and
Anthony Ingraffea, PhD, Professor of Civil 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 nations 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 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 nations infrastructure.

Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook 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 dont
want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.'

So its 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 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

What is Fracking?

Fracking is a relatively new way of accessing natural deposits of shale gas and oil buried deep within
the ground. The process of fracking or hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of a mixture of sand,
water and chemicals into an oil or gas well at high pressures to fracture the shale rocks to release the
natural gas inside. Fracking is both an environmental and political issue. Hitherto inaccessible, we
have managed to invent a way of getting down many thousands of feet into the earth to get essential
fossil fuels out to use to heat our homes and cook our food, for instance. Fracking is not universally
viewed as a good thing, however. Although it has given us access to new deposits of shale gas, it can
have a huge impact on the environment (like other fossil fuels).

FRACKING IS DIFFERENT. THE RISKS OF ANY SINGLE WELL ARE TINY COMPARED TO A NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT. BUT SEVERAL HUNDRED WELLS? SEVERAL THOUSAND?
RUSSELL GOLD

Read here more about Fracking:

What is Fracking?

Pros and Cons of Fracking

Benefits of Fracking

There are a number of benefits of fracking as opposed to using other methods of extracting natural
gas from the earth and from stones.

Access To More Gas and Oil

Fracking allows us access to natural deposits of gas that we have not yet been able to get to with our
other, traditional methods of extraction. Because fracking allows us to drill thousands of feet into the
ground to get access to gas stored deep within the earth in stones far below the surface, we can get
access to even more gas. This has a couple of upshots:

1. Gas is becoming cheaper and cheaper Because of its abundance, gas is a lot cheaper than it
has been in years. With oil still commanding extortionate prices, gas is actually getting
cheaper and cheaper because it is abundant not only in this country but in others all around
the world. You can now heat your houses for much more reasonable prices than ever before.
 2. We have more time to adapt Fossil fuels are a non renewable source of energy: we have
known this for many years. However, we are not yet ready for them to run out. In order to
give us more time to research safe and effective ways of powering our cars, heating our
homes and cooking our food, we can now use this surplus of gas thanks to fracking.

Now gas can not only be found all over the world but it can also be accessed all over the world with
relative ease, meaning that there is plenty to go around for the time being and for a short time into
the future.

Direct and Indirect Economic Impact

According to American Enterprise Institute, The direct benefit of increasing oil and gas production
includes the value of increased production attributable to the technology. In 2011, the USA produced
8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells. Taking an average price of $4.24 per
thousand cubic feet, thats a value of about $36 billion, due to shale gas alone. The increase in the
production of natural gas has impacted the trade balance between US and other countries. In short,
as a result of increase in fracking, natural gas imports reduced by 25 percent between 2007 and
2011.

According to EPA, natural gas based power stations emit much lesser carbon dioxide than coal power
based power stations. As production of natural gas has increased in US, so has the production of
electricity. Much of this increase has come from power stations that have switched from coal to
natural gas due to increase in supply of it. The drop in prices of natural gas would result in reduction
of electricity prices in the US.

No More Relying on Foreign Countries

The politics of the world would be difficult enough without throwing energy problems into the mix.
However, the lack of fossil fuels and the fact that they are not distributed evenly all around the world
is a source of real tension amongst some of the most influential countries of the world. Because we
now have more access to more gas deposits, however, we now no longer have to rely on other
countries around the world for at least some of our fossil fuels. Instead, we can rely on ourselves to
provide energy for our own residents. This could help, in the long run, to ease the tensions between
some of the key countries in the world.

Increase in Employment Opportunities

With the increase in production of natural gas, the number of people employed in production and
delivery activities has also increased. As there are lot of oil and natural gas deposits that still needs to
be tapped, the number of people employed in oil and natural gas extraction will only rise. The
increase in use of fracking technology has seen 67% rise in employment 118,400 in 2003
to 198,400 by December 2012.

Reduction in the Levels of Air Pollution

One of the main complaints about fossil fuels is the fact that they cause air pollution. When oil and
coal are burned they release carbon dioxide into the air, contributing to the overall amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are not so slowly contributing to and causing global
warming. Besides carbon dioxide, coal also releases dangerous compounds and elements into the air
such as sulfur, which is poisonous. Burning gas, on the other hand, does not release as much carbon
dioxide into the air, meaning that, the more gas we burn (as opposed to oil or coal) the better the air
quality will be over all. This can help to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the air and
therefore slow global warming down.

Here is a infographic on fracking that will help you understand the true cost of fracking.

Dangers of Fracking

Most people object to fracking as a method of extracting natural gas from the ground because of the
dangers that it poses to the environment, to animals and even to humans.

Environmental Issues

Although we said above that air pollution is less of a problem if more gas is burned (as opposed to
coal or oil, for instance), there are actually ways in which fracking causes more problems of pollution
in the world. There are a number of ways that fracking can affect the environment and add to the
levels of pollution currently found throughout the world:

1. Water Pollution Because water that is full of dangerous chemicals is pumped into the
ground in huge amounts (around 100 times as much as in the usual gas extraction techniques
previously employed), more and more problems are being found in and around areas where
fracking takes place. The water that is pumped into the ground is supposed to be extracted
after the process of fracking. However, sometimes it does not rise up to the surface but rather
seeps through the ground towards other water sources like rivers, ponds and even the sea.
The chemicals that are in the water mix can cause problems for creatures and plants living in
the water or relying on it for their survival. They can also cause problems for people who are
drinking the water if the chemicals seep into reservoirs, for instance.

2. Air Pollution The process of fracking can actually release chemicals into air that are known
to cause cancer such as benzene and methane. This happens just after the gas has been
tapped but before the actual production begins, which means that it is not caught and
therefore is released into the air that people and animals breathe.

3. Noise and Light Pollution For people living close to places where fracking is taking place,
noise and light pollution can be a real problem. Fracking processes go on throughout the day
 and night, meaning that light pollution goes on at all times, and the heavy, noisy vehicles that
bring materials and carry gas away can disturb the sleep of those living in the area of a
fracking plant.

Global Warming

Although, as described above, burning gas does not cause as much carbon dioxide to be released as
burning oil or coal, it does still release carbon dioxide into the air. If we are relying on gas rather than
trying to find new, alternative energy sources that are cleaner and do not cause problems for the
environment, then we are still adding to the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. In the long run,
this could still have hugely problematic effects on the environment and life on Earth.

Can Lead to Drought Like Situation

According to this, there are more than 500,000 active natural gas wells in the US. Each gas well
requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site. It takes 1-8
million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job. That means 72 trillion gallons of water
dedicated to fracking the US oil wells. A city which is already facing acute water shortage, fracking on
a large scale can lead to drought like situation.

Exposure To Toxic Chemicals

Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as Lead,
Uranium, Radium, Methanol, Formaldehyde, Hydrochloric Acid, Mercury, and Ethylene Glycol.
Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing. During the process of fracking,
methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and degrade nearby groundwater.
Methane concentrations are 17x higher in drinking-water wells near fracturing sites than in normal
wells.

No More Advancement

Because we are now relying on gas especially because it is so cheap nowadays since fracking is
so effective at getting access to even the most difficult to reach deposits, we are not longer trying to
find alternative energy sources. When we were worried about not being able to use cars, for instance,
we started searching looking into solar powered cars. The danger with fracking is that we are no
longer going to look for alternative energy sources as the sun or the wind. Instead, we will pump
harmful chemicals into our environment and cause global warming to happen quicker.

Fracking: What is it?

Fracking for shale gas has become big business, transforming the US energy landscape. But is it
safe?This is a fracking well in the western United States. (Brooks, M, "Frack on or frack off? Can shale
gas really save the planet," New Scientist, August 10, 2013)

Shale gas is methane trapped in tiny pockets in shale rock formations. In order to extract the gas,
engineers drill shafts down into the shale, most often with many radiating horizontal shafts that feed
into the vertical shaft. Engineers drill vertical shafts down to great depths, then they drill radiating
horizontal shafts that feed it. Then they force hydraulic fluids into the rock to fracture the shale and
open the pockets of gas, releasing it to flow to the surface.

The term "fracking" is short for "hydraulic fracturing." Over the past 10 to 15 years, the number of
fracking wells has expanded rapidly in the US, liberating increasing amounts of methane.

What are the benefits?

So much natural gas has been extracted through fracking in recent years that US carbon emissions
are actually falling. This is partly due to the economic recession since 2008, but the US Energy
Information Administration reckons that just less than half of the fall in emissions is due to the
replacement of coal burning with shale gas for electrical energy production. It would seem that shale
gas, which occurs in shale deposits around the world, is in a perfect position to replace coal in power
stations. Already more than a third of natural gas burned in the US is coming from fracking wells, and
shale gas is now cheaper than coal in the US.President Obama recently praised the US natural gas
boom in a speech on climate change, crediting it with delivering cleaner energy. Many have described
fracking as the bridge between the carbon-based energy systems of the past and a cleaner, greener
future.

What are the risks?

In 2013, an estimated 250 billion cubic meters of natural gas will be brought to the surface by
fracking in the US. ( Brooks, 2013)

If fracking was just a new-fangled way of tapping natural gas sources, it would be welcomed by most
people as a cheaper, cleaner alternative to oil and coal. The problems lie in the method of
extraction.In order to get the gas out, a witch's brew of toxic chemicals has to be pumped into the
shale at high pressure. More specifically, this is a mixture of water, sand, lubricants, poisons to keep
bacteria and other microorganisms from clogging the pipes, and hydrochloric acid to dissolve the
excess cement in the pipes (Brooks, 2013). If these fluids stayed far underground, they might not
damage the human environment. The problem is that they find their way back to the surface through
accidents at well heads, well blowouts, backflow of fluids to the surface, and leaks throughout the
system. Altogether, more than 650 products containing chemicals with potential cancer-causing
properties have been used in fracking (Balaba and Smart, 2012).

One would think that a country such as the US would have laws to protect the environment from
toxic pollutants like these, but unfortunately the current laws are full of loopholes when it comes to
fracking. For instance, an exception to the Safe Drinking Water Act is made for toxic chemicals
injected into wells during hydraulic fracturing. An exception to the Clean Water Act permits
temporarily stored waste water from fracking facilities to go untreated.

Other exemptions to US environmental safety regulations mean that fracking well operators are not
obliged to report annual releases of toxic chemicals from their wells (Centner, 2013).Finally, the
government does not require well operators to disclose the chemical contents of the fluids they use in
the fracking process. These are considered trade secrets. It seems ironic that these companies do not
have to disclose the contents of their fracking chemicals, when the manufacturers of household
cleaning products must disclose every detail of their contents (Lauver, 2012).
The Obama administration is proposing a new set of fracking rules, and their initial proposal has
received an enormous number of comments from the public (more than 175,000 responses). The
new set of rules only cover fracking on public lands, but the administration hopes that these rules will
be adopted by individual states for use on private lands as well.

The rules set standards of well integrity and management of polluted water that flows back to the
surface. Groundwater pollution is another serious concern, but results of an EPA study on that threat
are not expected before 2016. In the meantime, thousands of new fracking wells are springing up all
over the country.

6 Pros and Cons of Hydrofracking

Natural gas is used as a source of energy for cooking, electricity generation and heating. Its a fossil
fuel used as fuel for vehicles as well as a chemical feedstock in manufacturing plastics and other
organic chemicals. This non-renewable energy resource is found in deep underground rock formations
and they are also associated with hydrocarbon reservoirs in coal beds and as methane clathrates.

In order to release gas from subsurface porous rock formations, a process called fracking is
employed. This process is also known as hydrofracking which is short for hydraulic fracturing. The
year 1949 marked the first commercial fracking operation and since then, about one million wells
have been hydraulically fractured in the US alone. Its even estimated that fracking will account for
almost 70% of natural gas development in North America.

What happens during fracking is that large amounts of water are combined with a small amount of
chemicals and sand. This combination is then pumped into a drilled gas well under high pressure. The
main purpose of hydrofracking is to create small fractures in the rock through the use of water so
that tiny existing fractures would open along the rock. Sand remains behind when the pressure is
released and the water is removed. As such, it helps gas to flow more freely into the well by keeping
the newly created fractures open.
Basically, the entire hydraulic fracturing process makes the mining of natural gas more economically
possible. It is much different than conventional natural gas drilling because it uses more water, there
is a potential for toxicity and there are environmental impacts. Its these concerns, particularly
frackings impact on the environment, that are being debated. Is it time to abandon the practice of
fracking? Or are there really benefits to such a process? Heres a look at the pros and cons of
hydrofracking/

List of Pros of Hydrofracking

1. Using natural gas rather than coal has benefits.

Fracking supporters believe that the increased reliance on natural gas is creating more health
benefits. Why is that so? The burning of natural gas doesnt produce as much harmful particles in the
air compared to the burning of coal.

Natural gas supply produced through fracking has displaced the burning of coal which has been
responsible for the death of thousands each year. In 2008, coal was responsible for 50% of electricity
generation in the US. By 2012, that number dwindled down to 37%.

On the other hand and for the same period electricity generation through natural gas increased
from 20% to around 30%. Emissions for nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have decreased
dramatically as well. And so the rallying cry of those supporting fracking is this: fracking saves lives.

2. Natural gas produces less greenhouse gas emissions.

Supporters of fracking say that natural gas only produces 44 to 50% of greenhouse gases compared
with the burning of coal. This is considered a benefit. Although there is research that shows methane
is really harmful, the study was done using a 20-year time period. The way global warming potential
is measured is through a 100-year period; and using that measure shows that methane isnt as
harmful as claimed.

While methane is indeed potent, the impact is brief unlike the impact of increased carbon dioxide
emissions. One of the goals of fracking is to lessent the reliance of coal which is the biggest threat to
the atmosphere.

3. Its highly unlikely that fracking will contaminate drinking water supplies.
A well-run drilling operation is not likely to create a crack allowing chemicals to get to shallow
aquifers and surface water supplies. Drinking water and oil and gas deposits are located at different
levels in the ground. According to research, not a lot of major incidents happened between 2008 to
2011 across more than 3,500 wells in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania.

List of Cons of Hydrofracking

1. Using natural gas doesnt guarantee safety for all.

While its true that natural gas may well indeed displace coal in areas such as North Carolina or West
Virginia but the same thing cannot be said for Texas and other areas across the West. In other
words: we cant rely on fracking to improve air quality.

But air quality isnt the only issue associated with fracking. For one, the air quality dynamics linked
with fracking operations is not really understood. Plus, its not really known what the health impacts
of fracking are for the residents and workers.

Studies from Colorado and Utah have also shown that there are under-appreciated problems with air
quality, particularly when relating to the ozone. But above all: natural gas is a fossil fuel and a non-
renewable energy source. Put simply, its not the clear cut answer to cleaning up the air.
If achieving cleaner air was really the goal, why not go for much better alternatives such as wind,
solar and geothermal? These alternative energy sources produce little to not harmful particulates.

2. Methane emissions eliminates greenhouse gas benefits of natural gas derived from
fracking.
This is according to a study conducted by Cornell. Heres a fact: leaked methane is a powerful
greenhouse gas. When this escapes the well, it will remove whatever benefit there is of using natural
gas that was produced through fracking.

The lowering of natural gas costs will drive people to use more energy and as such, will eliminate the
benefits of gas, particularly its clean benefit. Plus, the cheaper natural gas becomes, the less
attention will be paid to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

3. Fracking is risking human health through the contamination of drinking water

supplies.
A major study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that high-
volume fracking techniques can indeed contaminate drinking water. Not only that, there have been a
number of reports across the United States about fouled tap water; in fact, some have turned bubbly
and flammable due to increased methane.

Well blowouts have also happened and these are dangerous for the environment. Even worse, one in
five chemicals used in fracking are classified as trade secrets. Plus, there are companies that dont
follow federal or state regulations.

Natural Gas 101: Pros & Cons

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, like oil and coal. It's formed from decayed organic material transformed by
high temperatures and pressures over millions of years into bubbles of methane gas. Conventional
sources are found in underground gas fields or oil fields. Unconventional sources are more
challenging to extract because the gas is locked inside the sediment. These include coalbed methane
(trapped in the coalbed), tight gas (trapped in sandstone), gas hydrates (trapped in ice) and shale
gas (trapped in shale). This last source is frequently in the headlines, thanks to advances in hydraulic
fracturing, more commonly known as fracking. (1)

Considerable debate surrounds the recoverable size of the world's natural gas reserves. The U.S.
Energy Information Administration estimates there are at least 6,800 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of
proved natural gas reserves. The world is currently consuming a hefty 120 TCF a year, which means
at least another 56 years of reserves. However consumption is growing every year and the EIA
projects it will have doubled by 2040. Natural gas companies will need to discover new, unproved
reserves and develop new ways to extract the natural gas in order to keep up with the increasing
demand. (2)

This is a stunning rise for a power source that was once considered a mere byproduct of oil drilling.
Though first used to power street lights in the early 1800s, and for heating and cooking in the 1900s,
it still lagged far behind coal and oil. Only in the past fifty years has natural gas taken off, as methods
for extracting and transporting improved. Now considered cleaner and cheaper than coal, it supplies
22% of the world's energy, used in heating, electricity generation and even as engine fuel. It's also
heavily used in industrial applications, such as producing plastics and fertilizer. (3)

The top natural gas producers are the U.S., Russia, Iran and Canada.
Natural Gas Processing

After conducting geological surveys to detect the presence of conventional gas fields, a gas company
will drill down to extract the gas. With unconventional sources, gas companies have to take additional
steps to free the gas that is trapped in the sediment layers. In the case of hydraulic fracturing,
pressurized fluids are injected into a layer of shale to create fractures in the rock from which the
trapped gas bubbles can escape and be piped up to the surface. (4)

In its natural state (wet) natural gas is composed primarily of methane, with small percentages of
heavier hydrocarbons, like ethane, butane and propane, and often water and other chemical
compounds. After being refined into pure methane (dry), it's ready to be transported. Typically the
gas is sent overland through an extensive network of pipelines. The U.S. alone has some 500,000
miles of pipeline. Natural gas can also be transported as liquid natural gas (LNG). The gas is chilled to
-260 , when it condenses into a liquid 1/600th the previous volume. The LNG is then ready for
transport to its destination, at which point it's converted back into a gas. (5)

Once at a power plant, the gas is burned to push a turbine, either by heating water to drive a steam
turbine, heating air to drive a combustion turbine, or a combined cycle system where air is heated to
drive a combustion turbine, and the hot exhaust is then used to heat water to drive a steam turbine.
For each of these methods, the turbine then turns an electrical generator, creating electricity. (6)

Advantages & Disadvantages of Natural Gas

Natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels, producing half the carbon dioxide as coal and about
a third less than oil. It also emits fewer amounts of toxic chemicals like nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide. In the U.S. market, it is an abundant resource and currently the cheapest source of electrical
power (an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, vs 9 cents for coal and hydroelectric and 11 cents for
solar). (7)

Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, up to 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. If
improperly extracted, methane can be released into the atmosphere, or burnt off as flaring at oil
fields, releasing many toxic compounds into the atmosphere. There is considerable debate about the
environmental damage caused by fracking. While the evidence of groundwater contamination by
drilling is mixed, there is more of a danger of contamination from poor transportation, storage and
disposal practices of fracking wastewater. Micro-earthquakes are also a side effect of fracking. (8)

Future Trends

Natural gas is a growing industry. Countries with large shale gas reserves, like China, are attempting
to replicate the U.S.'s fracking success. Gas companies are looking at ways to make transporting
liquid natural gas cheaper, with the hopes of reaching new markets without the need for building
expensive pipelines. The use of compressed natural gas as vehicle fuel, though small, is steadily
growing in buses, garbage trucks and other kinds of municipal fleets. Researchers are working on
ways to extract the potentially vast amounts of natural gas reserves trapped beneath the ocean in
gas hydrates. (9)

Natural Gas Careers

The natural gas industry employs over 600,000 people. That figure is likely to only go up as more
reserves are developed. Major fields include engineering, surveying, construction and well servicing.
Many environmental careers are possible. Environmental lawyers deal with permitting and contracts.
Environmental inspectors ensure that drilling and disposal meets all environmental regulations.
Environmental lobbyists work to persuade local, state and federal government agencies to improve
existing regulations. (10)

Sources

(1)
http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/naturalGas/Conventional-Unconventional/Pages/default.aspx

(2)
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=3&pid=3&aid=6
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=3&pid=26&aid=2
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12251

(3)
http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/gas/
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/how_is_shale_gas_produced.pdf
http://www.apga.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3329
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/naturalgas/

(4)
http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=natural_gas_home-basics

(5)
http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/gas/gas_history.html
http://www.energy4me.org/energy-facts/energy-sources/petroleum/4/

(6)
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/oil-gas-fired-how.asp
http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/generation-gas
(7)
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

(8)
http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=natural_gas_home-basics
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

(9)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/12/18/pros-and-cons-natural-gas-vehicles/
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas.html
http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/primer.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/01/02/key-trends-impacting-natural-gas-prices-
in-the-u-s/

(10)
http://www.anga.us/why-natural-gas/jobs/us-natural-gas-benefits#.VEluXpPF9GW
http://naturalgas.org/jobs/
Environmentalists Hate Fracking. Are They Right?
What if President Barack Obama's biggest achievement on climate change was actually a total failure?

"It appears the United States may have gotten the chemistry wrong. Really wrong."

That's the central argument of a recent story in the Nation by Bill McKibben, a journalist and
environmental activist. "If you get the chemistry wrong," McKibben writes, "it doesn't matter how
many landmark climate agreements you sign or how many speeches you give. And it appears the
United States may have gotten the chemistry wrong. Really wrong."

McKibben's criticism is all about fracking, the controversial oil and gas drilling technique that involves
blasting underground shale formations with high-pressure water, sand, and chemicals. (He made a
similar case here in Mother Jones in September 2014.) Over the last decade, we've witnessed much-
celebrated strides in solar and other renewable sources of electricity. But by far the most significant
change in America's energy landscape has been a major shift from coal to natural gas. The trend was
already underway when Obama took office, but it reached a tipping point during his administration.
In March, federal energy analysts reported that 2016 will be the first year in history in which natural
gas provides a greater share of American electricity than coal does:

EIA

Across the country, many coal-fired power plants are being refitted to burn natural gas, or closing
entirely and being replaced by new natural gas plants. This transformation is being driven in part by
simple economics: America's fracking boom has led to a glut of low-cost natural gas that is
increasingly able to undersell coal. It's also driven by regulation: In its campaign to address climate
change, the Obama administration has focused mostly on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the
most prominent greenhouse gas. Coal-fired power plants are the country's No. 1 source of CO2
emissions. When natural gas is burned, it emits about half as much CO2 per unit of energy. So gas, in
the administration's view, can serve as a "bridge" to a cleaner future by allowing for deep cuts in coal
consumption while renewables catch up.

So far, that appears to be working. A federal analysis released this week shows that energy-related
CO2 emissions (which includes electricity, transportation, and gas used in buildings) are at their
lowest point in a decade, largely "because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of
natural gas for electricity generation":

EIA

But for many environmentalists, including McKibben and 350.orgthe organization he co-founded
Obama's "bridge" theory is bunk. That's because it ignores methane, another potent greenhouse gas
that is the main component of natural gas. When unburned methane leaks into the atmosphere, it
can help cause dramatic warming in a relatively short period of time. Methane emissions have long
been a missing piece in the country's patchwork climate policy; this week the Obama administration is
expected to roll out the first regulations intended to address the problem. But the new regulations will
apply only to new infrastructure, not the sprawling gas network that already exists. So is fracking
really just a bridge to nowhere?

what is methane, anyway?

For Obama's bridge strategy to succeed, it would need to result in greenhouse gas emissions that are
in line with the global warming limit enshrined in the Paris Agreement: "well below" 2 degrees Celsius
(3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. So let's start with the gas itself.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, methane accounted for about 11.5 percent of US
greenhouse gas emissions in 2014 (the rest was mostly CO2, plus a little bit of nitrous oxide and
hydrofluorocarbons). Roughly one-fifth of that methane came from natural gas systems (the No. 3
source after landfill emissions and cow farts and burps). Even with the fracking boom, methane
emissions from natural gas have held at about the same level for the last five years, and they are
actually down considerably from a decade ago (assuming you trust the EPA stats; more on that later).
By volume, they're at about the same level as CO2 emissions from jet fuelin other words, a
significant source, but an order of magnitude less than CO2 from power plants or cars.

But the tricky thing about greenhouse gases is that volume isn't necessarily the main concern.
Because of their molecular shape, different gases are more or less effective at trapping heat. To
compare gases, scientists use a metric called "global warming potential," which measures how much
heat a certain volume of a gas traps over a given stretch of time, typically 100 years. There's
considerable debate among scientists about how the global warming potential of methane compares
with that of CO2. The EPA says methane is 25 times as potent as CO2 over 100 years. McKibben cites
a Cornell University researcher who says a more relevant figure for methane "is between 86 and 105
times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two."

At the end of the day, CO2 is still enemy No. 1.

It's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison because the two gases have different life spans.
CO2 can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years, whereas methane lasts only for a couple of
decades (after which it degrades into CO2). Global warming potential is also an imperfect comparison
metric because it leaves out other kinds of impacts besides trapping heat, said Drew Shindell, a
climatologist at Duke University. Atmospheric methane also creates ozone, for example, which is
dangerous for the health of plants and humans. By Shindell's reckoning, including all their impacts,
each ton of methane kept out of the atmosphere is equal to 100 tons of prevented CO2 in the near
term, and 40 tons of CO2 in the long term.

The timescale is key, said Johan Kuylenstierna, policy director of the Stockholm Environment
Institute. Methane has a more immediate effect on global temperature, he explained, so over the
next decade or two, reducing methane emissions could be a way to stave off the immediate impacts
of global warming.

"If we reduce the rate of near-term warming, we can reduce the impact to habitat shifts in
species," Kuylenstierna said. "We can buy time for vulnerable communities to adapt. We can reduce
the rate of glaciers' melting in the Arctic."

But in terms of limiting permanent, long-term damage to the climate, and achieving the goals of the
Paris Agreement, "the only way to do that is to address CO2," he said.

That was the key finding of a 2014 study by University of Chicago geophysicist Ray Pierrehumbert,
which concluded that "there is little to be gained by implementing [methane and other short-lived
climate pollutant] mitigation before stringent carbon dioxide controls are in place." Pierrehumbert and
his colleagues repeated that conclusion in a new study this month, finding that by mid-century, if CO2
emissions aren't under control, the short-term warming caused by methane will be irrelevant. In other
words, at the end of the day, CO2 is still enemy No. 1.

With that said, there's widespread agreement among scientists that ultimately, the only solution to
climate change is to stop emitting all greenhouse gases. So at a certain point, the methane versus
CO2 debate becomes less scientific and more of a value judgment: How much short-term climate
damage are we willing to tolerate in exchange for reducing the emissions that are more damaging
over the long term?

Meanwhile, there's another problem. Debating the relative dangers of methane versus CO2 is of
limited value unless you know how much methane the natural gas industry is really emitting. And
figuring that out is harder than it sounds.

Measuring the methane

The natural gas system produces methane emissions at nearly every step of the process, from the
well itself to the pipe that carries gas into your home. Around two-thirds of those emissions are
"intentional," meaning they occur during normal use of equipment. For example, some pneumatic
gauges use the pressure of natural gas to flip on or off and emit tiny puffs of methane when they do
so. The other one-third comes from so-called "fugitive" emissions, a.k.a. leaks, that happen when a
piece of equipment cracks or otherwise fails.

Since natural gas companies aren't legally obligated to measure and report their methane emissions,
scientists and the EPA have to make a lot of educated guesses to come up with a total. The
inadequacies of the EPA's official measurements were made clear in February, when the agency
released estimates for methane from the oil and gas industry that were radically higherabout 27
percent higherthan had been previously reported. That difference, according to the Environmental
Defense Fund, represents a 20-year climate impact equal to 200 coal-fired power plants. The revision
resulted from improved metrics showing how much natural gas infrastructure there really is and how
much methane is being emitted from each piece of it. The EPA had been systematically low-balling
both of those figures for years.

Measuring methane leakage from gas systems is hard and often inexact.

Other evidence has piled up to suggest that methane emissions are higher than the EPA previously
estimated. EDF surveyed more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies of methane emissions from
specific fracking sites in Texas, Colorado, and elsewhere; almost all of these studies found that
emissions levels were higher than had been previously reported. McKibben leads his story with a new
study from Harvard that concluded that methane emissions have increased more than 30 percent
over the last decade. That's a big departure from the EPA's analysis, which suggests there was no
significant increase over that time period.

However, the Harvard paper includes a major caveat: The authors admit they "cannot readily
attribute [the methane increase] to any specific source type." In other words, there's no evidence the
increase is from fracking any more than from agricultural or waste sources. Either way, it's clear that
methane emissions from the gas system are higher than most people thought, and certainly higher
than they should be if fighting climate change is the end goal. Even EPA chief Gina McCarthy
admitted in February that there was "a big discrepancy" between the administration's original
understanding of gas-related methane emissions and what new studies are revealing.

A natural gas well in Colorado Brennan Linsley/AP

It turns out that measuring methane leakage from gas systems, whether intentional or accidental, is
difficult and often inexact. Hand-held infrared detectors work for doing spot checks, but they're labor-
intensive and not very useful if the leak is in an underground pipe. Aerial surveys give a better picture
of overall emissions but, again, can't easily locate specific leaks, as illustrated in this graphic from
MIT.

The good news is that increased public concern about methane has pushed the gas industry to adopt
better emission detection methods, said Ramon Alvarez, a senior scientist at the EDF. These include
drive-by detectors that are more precise and better calibrated to account for weather conditions that
make it hard to pinpoint emissions sources (i.e., wind blowing methane away from where it
originated).

"The methods are improving," he said. "Some of these mobile surveys with new instruments are on
the cusp of becoming accepted practice, and regulators are considering requiring those things."
So can we fix the leaks?

A key difference between CO2 emissions from coal plants and methane emissions from the gas
system is that the latter are much easier to reduce. In other words, many of the leaks can be fixed
fairly easily and cost-effectively. That's a crucial advantage over coal: Capturing CO2 emissions from
coal plants has proved to be massively expensive and not very effective. There are no operational
"carbon capture and sequestration" coal plants in the United States; one of the two under
construction is billions of dollars over budget before even being switched on.

A 2014 study commissioned by EDF found that using existing technology, systemwide methane
emissions could be reduced by 40 percent at a cost to industry of less than a penny per thousand
cubic feet (Mcf) of natural gas. (A typical new fracked shale gas well produces about 2,700 Mcf of gas
per day.) Some repairs are easier than others. McKibben warns about the difficulty of fixing cement
casings on wells themselves. Pipelines, too, are vexing. According to the EPA, there are about 21
miles of plastic gas pipelines in the United States for every mile of old cast iron pipes. But cast iron
pipes leak so much24 times the emissions of plastic pipesthat their cumulative emissions are
actually higher than those of plastic pipes. Replacing cast iron with plastic is a no-brainer
technologically, but it's very expensive and slow.

The single biggest source of methane leaks can be greatly reduced simply by replacing a few functional
parts more frequently.

But wells account for only about 5 percent of gas system methane emissions; pipelines account for
only 2 percent. Other sources could be much easier to control. The single biggest source, leaks from
compressors, can be greatly reduced simply by replacing a few functional parts more frequently than
the current industry standard. The second-biggest source, leaks from pneumatic gauges, can be fixed
by running them on electricitypossibly from a few small, well-placed solar panelsinstead of gas
pressure.

Altogether, including the value of saved gas that would otherwise leak, the 40 percent reduction
projected by EDF would save the industry and gas consumers $100 million per year, the study
foundnot even counting the climate benefits.

So why aren't gas companies pursuing these measures more aggressively? Hemant Mallya, an oil and
gas specialist with the market research firm ICF International, who authored the EDF report, pointed
to a number of factors. Costs for various fixes can vary widely between sites. There may be efforts by
companies that own gas infrastructure to shift the responsibility to different companies that operate
and maintain it, or vice versa. Even the most cost-effective measures require up-front investment,
which could be too high a bar for companies with competing financial needs. But perhaps most
importantly, because methane emissions aren't currently regulated, companies simply don't have to
do anything about them. Why spend money fixing a problem you aren't required to fix?

"Any voluntary measure capital needs will receive lower priority compared to projects necessary to
drive the business," Mallya said.

That calculus could change soon: This week, the EPA is expected to finalize regulations on methane
emissions that aim to reduce leaks from new gas infrastructure 40 to 45 percent by 2025. The new
rules are only a tiny piece of the full solution since, by EDF's reckoning, more than 70 percent of gas-
sector methane emissions from now until 2025 will come from sources that already exist. In March,
Obama made a joint promise with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to implement regulations
on methane at existing sources, but it's unlikely those will be finalized before Obama leaves office. So
it will be up to the next president to follow throughor not. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders have promised to strengthen methane regulations. Donald Trump has been mum, but given
that he thinks climate change is a hoax and wants to dismantle the "Department of Environmental,"
it's safe to say methane emission regulations will probably not rank among his top priorities.

Lock-in

Regardless of what happens with methane emissions, there's one other reason to be concerned about
Obama's idea of a natural gas "bridge." In particular, will a buildup of gas infrastructure force the
country to keep using fossil fuels long after we need to get off them almost entirely?

As part of the international climate agreement finalized in Paris in December, Obama promised that
the United States will reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels
by 2025. But to stay within the Paris-mandated global warming limit"well below" 2 degrees C (3.6
F)emissions will have to drop much lower than that. A consortium of scientists called the US Deep
Decarbonization Pathways Project has found that for the United States, the 2C target means reducing
emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a massive, societywide shift from where we are
now. Needless to say, a core aspect of the group's recommended strategy is to reduce fossil fuel use
as much as possible, as quickly as possible.

The longer we continue sinking money into new fossil fuel infrastructure, the more challenging the
transition to clean energy becomes.

Even if we managed to eliminate methane emissions and leaks from the natural gas system, gas
power plants will still emit carbon dioxideless CO2 than coal-fired plants, but a significant amount
nonetheless. And the longer we continue sinking money into new fossil fuel infrastructure, the more
challenging the transition to clean energy becomes. That's because power plants have life spans of
several decades, as they slowly repay their massive upfront costs to investors. A new report from the
University of California-Berkeley finds that, on average, a gas plant built todayand, remember,
Obama's Clean Power Plan hinges on the construction of more natural gas plantswill stay in
operation until 2057. Each passing year in which new gas plants are built pushes that date back.

The consequence of this so-called "lock-in effect" could be that renewable energy stays shut out of
the electricity mix, instead of gradually filling the gap left by the decline in coal. A 2014 market
forecast study led by UC-Irvine projected that with a high supply of natural gas, renewables will
produce just 26 percent of US electricity in 2050; with a lower gas supply, the share of renewables
increases to 37 percent. The upshot, according to the study, is that increased reliance on gas results
in very little reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades. The study
found a similar outcome even when the methane leakage rate was assumed to be zero.

This would create a situation in which the United States either blows past its climate targets, has to
somehow forcibly shut down gas plants before their planned expiration date, or hopes that
renewables will get cheap enough to out-compete gas on their ownnot exactly a savory choice for
politicians and investors. But the UC-Irvine study based its forecast on the assumption that existing
policies would remain unchanged: no regulation of methane emissions (a situation that, as of this
week, will likely change), and no new incentives at the federal, state, or local levels for renewable
energy, etc. In other words, there was no exit ramp from the "bridge." Once again, it will be up to
the next president and Congress to design that exit rampor not.

Other benefits of coal-to-gas transition

All forms of energy production come with environmental side effects that have nothing to do with
climate change. And while EPA scientists concluded last year that fracking has not led to "widespread,
systemic impacts on drinking water," individual cases of contamination continue to occur. The
evidence that underground wastewater disposal from frack sites can lead to earthquakes gets
stronger all the time.

Of course, anyone who has seen Appalachia's mountaintop-removal coal mining knows that coal
comes with no shortage of its own devastating impacts. Ash from coal-fired power plants, loaded with
arsenic and other toxic substances, causes a wide array of severe or fatal illnesses. Coal mining
remains an extremely dangerous profession. And burning coal is incredibly hazardous to nearby
communities. A 2010 study by California's Clean Air Task Force directly blamed coal-fired power
plants for 13,200 deaths, 9,700 hospitalizations, and 20,000 heart attacks in the United States in that
year alone. Flaming tap water near frack sites notwithstanding, the public health impacts of coal
consumption are clearly far worse than those caused by gas.

A 2013 report by the Breakthrough Institute does a nice job comparing coal and gas on a variety of
nonclimate metrics:
Breakthrough Institute

Even if you think natural gas might be a foolish choice when it comes to greenhouse emissions, the
picture changes considerably when you look at the full public health impacts of coal production. In a
2015 study, Duke's Shindell used an economic analysis to put a dollar value on the cumulative
impactsclimate, health, etc.of coal and gas. He found that the cost to society of burning coal was
14 to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour; for gas it was 4 to 18 cents.

How does this all add up? For people who live near fossil fuel extraction sites or the power plants
where fossil fuels are burned, the answer is pretty obvious: From a public health perspective,
Obama's gas "bridge" benefits coal-impacted communities at the expense of fracking-impacted
communities. But from a local employment perspective, the opposite is true. From a climate
perspective, a rapid transition off coal has clear long-term benefits, even if there are short-term
impacts from methane. Greenhouse gas emissions from gas are probably much easier to mitigate
than emissions from coal, meaning that the kinds of regulations already being drafted by EPA could
go a long way toward improving gas' stature as a climate solution.

So, is fracking really worse than coal? That claim seems highly dubious, given the myriad significant
benefits of reducing coal consumption and lowering CO2 emissions. But at least from the climate
change perspective, if natural gas is the end of the road, the transition may be a wash: Ultimately,
the only thing that really matters is getting as much renewable energy as possible as quickly as
possible. So the "bridge" only makes sense if we have a way to get off itand so far, that road map
is unclear. The debate between fracking and coal too often misses the forest for the trees, according
to Shindell. "We really have to target both," he said. "If we start trading one against the other, we
don't really get anywhere."

Kuylenstierna agreed: "The only way you get anywhere near 1.5 degrees C is by doing everything."

The Pros and Cons of Fracking

Monday, 4 July 2016 15:14:49 Europe/London

From anti-fracking slogans lining the lanes in sleepy Nottinghamshire villages, to Lancashire
grandmothers facing jail for protest-camping in farmers frackable fields, fracking is certainly an issue
that gets people hot under the collar. But the government and the energy companies are both agreed
that fracking is in the best interests of our country, and are pushing ahead with fracking applications
across the North and East Midlands. So whos right?

If you want to get in on the debate but are feeling a little uninformed, youre in the right place. Here
well tell you everything you need to know about the fracking process, its history and its future in the
UK, finishing with 12 easy-read pros and cons that underlie most of the debate about fracking.
What is Fracking?

Fracking is the colloquial term for a technique involving hydraulic fracturing. It is done when an oil
well which has already been drilled is no longer producing useful amounts of energy, and involves
breaking apart the rocks in the well to release trapped pockets of natural gas.

Fracking uses a mixture of water and chemicals injected at very high pressure into the well. When the
mixture reaches the bottom, the pressure causes the surrounding shale rocks to crack or fracture,
releasing pockets of natural gas which can be collected and used.

The benefits of fracking

The UK government is actively backing fracking as a means to harvest energy resources for the UK,
and for good reason too. There are a number of significant benefits for us as a nation, including:

Energy security: The UK currently only produces around 43 per cent of its natural gas
requirements. The rest comes mainly from overseas, including Norway and Russia. Producing more
gas at home means the UK is less reliant on overseas production, and therefore less at risk of sudden
price hikes.

Proven technology: In the US, fracking has been taking place for over half a century. The
techniques and tools have, in the main, proven to be safe, and any incidents have been put down to
bad practice on the part of the contractor.

Productive output: Using figures from the US, a good shale well there will produce around 30
million cubic feet (85,000 cubic metres) of gas over the course of four months. Thats equivalent to
65,000 barrels of oil, and enough to power 11,000 homes for those four months. It remains to be
seen if the same successes will be had in the UK, however.

Job creation: If two thirds of the currently proposed shale gas schemes go ahead, these projects
will create around 64,000 new jobs.

Money for councils: Two years ago, the Prime Minister promised to allow local authorities to take
100 per cent of the business rates from fracking companies in their area, rather than the usual 50 per
cent. These businesses will be turning large profits, so this could be highly beneficial to the local
council and residents.
 Cheaper energy: With the home grown gas obtained from fracking in the US, residents there pay
about a third of what we do for their domestic and business gas supply. Projections are that UK
consumers could enjoy a similar benefit, should shale gas take off.

The downsides of fracking

Fracking for natural gas could have many benefits for the UK as a nation, but there are some
downsides too:

It uses huge amounts of water: To frack one well once uses around 8 million gallons of water.
In an age where were doing our best to conserve water at home, this is a lot of H2O to be shooting
into the ground.

It uses hazardous chemicals: The exact composition of fracking liquid is kept under fairly tight
wraps, but anti fracking campaigners insist that it contains up to 600 chemicals. These are said to
include highly toxic and carcinogenic substances such as uranium, mercury, methanol, hydrochloric
acid and formaldehyde.

Chemicals can leech into drinking water: During the fracking process, it is possible that
methane and other chemicals leech out of the well and enter groundwater nearby. In the US,
research has found that methane concentrations are 17 times greater in areas where fracking is
taking place nearby.

Health of local residents could be impacted: In the US, there have been over a thousand
reported cases where water has become contaminated near areas of fracking. In some places, local
residents have suffered sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to drinking this
contaminated water.

Its very expensive: In the US, fracking companies estimate the cost of just one well to range
from $3 to $12 million (2 to 8 million). Initially this will be money well spent, but the supply from
fracked wells tends to dwindle rapidly, making this one of the more expensive ways of securing
energy.

It could detract from investment in renewables: Campaigners believe the government should
invest in renewable energy rather than continuing to rely on fossil fuels. The shale gas extracted by
fracking is still a fossil fuel, so although it certainly relieves some of the pressure on Britain to secure
gas from overseas, its still going to be contributing to climate change with every cubic metre burned.
Whats happening in the UK?

The UK government is working hard to ensure fracking can take place safely and responsibly in the
proposed sites here. The majority of the sites that have been proposed to date are in the North East,
around Hull and Sheffield, and in the North West around Liverpool. There are also potential sites in
Glasgow, near London, around Cardiff and to the south in Bournemouth.

Since the Cuadrilla problem in 2011, there has been no full scale fracking allowed in the UK.
However, since new rules came into place in April, companies can now once again start applying for
their licenses to frack. Licenses will only be granted where companies can prove they stand up to
rigorous safety regulations.

According to the British Geological Survey, there are enough shale gas reserves in the North of
England to supply the whole country with gas for up to 40 years. The question remains whether this
method of energy procurement is indeed affordable and safe.

Image sources:

1 - http://energyfuse.org/tag/fracking/

2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401

3 - http://fplm.org/the-truth-about-fracking.html

Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Key Issues

By John Wihbey on May 5, 2015

Have you been asked if you support or oppose fracking? A brief guide to sorting out the plusses and
minuses of key fracking issues.

By John Wihbey

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Energy

Theres 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 childrens 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.
Were not talking here about global warming, and deniers versus warmists. Were 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 theyll describe the modern miracle
of Americas 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 Americas 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 theres 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 . Its
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; its 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,
methanes 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
thats not the fracking thats just a matter of making sure that the steel tubing, the casing, is not
leaking and that the cement around it doesnt have cracks. Certain geologies, such as those in
Pennsylvanias 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 its 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. Weve 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 its worth remembering that
drilling operations and rigs dont go on forever its 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, its 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, were 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. Weve 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. Theres 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 pros and cons of fracking for natural gas

Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 00:00

William Reville

THE RECENT combination of hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking) with horizontal drilling
has transformed previously unproductive organic-rich shales into the largest natural gas fields in the
world. Fracking is a term now commonly heard in Ireland since the oil/gas exploration firm Tamboran
Resources recently estimated that the shale bedrock under Co Leitrim harbours up to $55 billion
(41.5b) worth of natural gas, releasable by fracking. However, fracking is opposed on environmental
grounds by a protest group called No Fracking in Ireland.

Shale gas is the best known of a number of unconventional sources of natural gas. Shale is a
common fine-grained sedimentary rock that can harbour gas when organic matter in the shale is
broken down at high temperatures to produce thermogenic methane. But shale has such a low
matrix permeability that commercial quantities of gas can only be released by creating extensive
artificial fractures by fracking. Horizontal drilling is frequently used with shale gas wells. First you drill
down vertically from the surface, perhaps about 2,000m, to reach the shale layer. Then the drilling
direction is changed by up to 90 degrees and proceeds horizontally for another 2,000m. This creates
maximum borehole surface area in contact with the shale.

The combination of fracking and horizontal drilling has seen shale gas production in the US grow from
1 per cent of overall gas production to 20 per cent in 2009, with expectations that it will grow to 50
per cent by 2035. According to the International Energy Agency, the new economic extraction of
shale gas increases the projected production of natural gas from 125 years to 250 years.

Basic fracking has been used in wells since the 1940s. When the vertical well shaft hits the rock-
bearing reservoir, chemically treated water is pumped down under high pressure to stimulate release
of the gas/oil. Such fracking typically consumes 20,000 to 80,000 gallons of water per well. However,
the new fracking used on shale calls for up to four million gallons of fluid per well. The high pressure
fluid cracks the shale and penetrates into the cracks extending them further. To keep the fractures
open when the pressure is later relaxed, a solid proppant, commonly sieved sand, is added to the
fluid. The propped fractures allow the trapped gas and oil to flow to the well. The injection fluid is
also heavily dosed with chemicals to aid its flow 15,000 to 60,000 gallons of chemicals per well.
Tamboran promises not to use chemical additives in any fracking in Ireland.

Up to 75 per cent of the fracking fluid returns up the well bore to the surface when the injection
pressure is released. This chemically toxic water is stored in large ponds for later reuse or transport
to treatment plants. This initial water return is accompanied by a significant belch of methane, a
powerful greenhouse gas.

Fracking poses several environmental threats. The water storage ponds must be lined to prevent
leakage, but there have been cases of water leaking through torn linings. Also, heavy rainfall can
cause ponds to overflow. However, secure containment of pond water is a matter that is surely
amenable to simple technical solution.
The belching of methane into the atmosphere from worldwide fracking would seriously exacerbate
global warming. However, this methane can be trapped with special equipment in a procedure called
green completion. This could be a regulatory requirement.

Another worry is that underground water blasts may create unexpected pathways for gas or liquid to
travel upwards to contaminate surface drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency (US)
claims that one well was contaminated with fracking chemicals and was delivering flammable water.

The oil industry counters that it is almost impossible to conceive of gas or liquid climbing the massive
depth of rock between shale and ground water. However one possible route for buoyant gas to travel
upwards is through faults in the concrete casing that drillers pour around the steel gas pipe they
insert into the bore hole. This casing is designed to prevent the upward passage of gas or liquid
outside the pipe that would contaminate ground water if allowed to pass.

Fracking will continue worldwide because conventional reservoirs of oil and gas are running out and
because of the hope of independence from Middle Eastern oil and gas. But I dont think we will see
fracking in Ireland for a long time, if ever. Conventionally produced gas from the Corrib field is now
10 years behind schedule in coming ashore.

William Reville is an Emeritus Professor in the Biochemistry Department and Public Awareness of
Science Officer at UCC. understandingscience.ucc.ie

Hydraulic Fracking Tradeoffs

Abigail Lebovitz
November 11, 2015

Submitted as coursework for PH240, Stanford University, Fall 2015

Introduction

The thought of the U.S. being less dependent on

oil imports is arousing to most Americans. So, it is
no surprise that at a time when the search for
alternative fuel sources is on the rise, hydraulic
fracturing, or fracking, has increased in
popularity. In a simplified form, as demonstrated
in Fig. 1, fracking is the mechanism in which
high-pressure water is directed at a shale rock,
causing the rock to fracture. A liquid, including
Fig. 1: Simplified image explaining the
water, chemicals and sand (the most common
mechanisms of hydraulic fracturing. (Source:
fracking proppant), is then injected into the rock
Wikimedia Commons)
causing gas to flow out. The proppant holds the
newly formed cracks open allowing gas or oil to flow out with less resistance. Surprisingly,
mechanisms similar to fracking have been around for a while, but recently this process has become
considerably more prevalent because of possible economical and environmental benefits. benefits.
Pros

As demonstrated by Dean Poplawski, Stanford Class of 2016, in his ph240 2014 report on hydraulic
fracturing, many scientists believe that major advantage to the increase of U.S. investment in fracking
is the divergence from other fossil fuels that typically lead to higher CO 2 emissions. However, recent
studies, for example one put on by Klaus Hubacek of the University of Maryland, College Park, claim
that the decline in CO2 emission from 2007-2013 is closely linked with the 2007 U.S. recession that
lead to unemployment and drop in the volume of goods consumption. [1] Despite recent findings,
there is still an evident positive outcome with decreasing the burning coal that fracking allows. If we
focus solely on the CO2 emission of the combustion of natural gas compared to coal, natural gas
generates half the carbon dioxide. [2] CO 2 is the largest greenhouse gas associated with human
activity, found to account for around 82% of human emissions including the top three sources of
electricity, transportation, and industry. [3] Therefore, if we were focusing solely on CO 2, would the
tradeoff of replacing coal for fracking oil be beneficial?

Cons

However, there is more than just C02 to consider when thinking about our environment. The largest
argument against fracking is its negative environmental impact. A major consequence of fracking is
the methane exposure that happens during the fracturing. The gas that comes back through the well
is usually methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the environment. One- fifth of fracking
devices have been found to admit methane into the environment. When released into the
environment, Methane, compared to CO2, is a much more powerful greenhouse gas regarding its
impact on global warming. [4] Traditionally fracking has been practiced on vertical wells; however,
recent technology has allowed fracking mechanisms to be applied to horizontal wells. Despite the
revenue of accumulating more resources, this new design in fracking requires a considerably larger
amount of water and chemicals.

Conclusion

There is no clear answer to whether fracking should be permitted in the U.S. It is difficult to weigh
the economic value verse the environmental impact. In looking at the main pros and cons of hydraulic
fracking, there are many questions surrounding the safety and environmental impact of fracking.
Although the reduction in coal usage is positive, is the emission of methane an even greater
negative? Hopefully more research can be done in regards to eliminating the methane emission from
wells. If progress can be made in limiting this deleterious chemical, fracking could be a promising
hope to give both financial and environmental benefits.

Abigail Lebovitz. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in
unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights,
including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

References

[1] S. Zielinskin, "Recession, Not Fracking, Drove a Drop in U.S. Carbon Emissions.," Smithsonian
Magazine, 21 Jul 15.

[2] K. A. Hassett and A. Mathur, "Benefits of Hydraulic Fracking," Oxford Energy Forum, Issue 91
(February 2013), p. 11.

[3] "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013.," U. S. Environment
Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-15-004, April 2014.
[4] C. Joyce, "Scientists Track Down Serious Methane Leak In Natural Gas Wells," National Public
Radio, 9 Dec 14.

The Pros and Cons of Fracking

By Jenna Iacurci

Sep 12, 2014 06:25 PM EDT

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.

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.

The Pros and Cons of Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as its commonly known as, is the method used to drill into natural
gas-rich shale rock. Natural gas has been seen as the transition fuel for the United States, moving
from fossil fuels to more efficient and renewable energy sources. There are several benefits to using
natural gas to fuel the country, but there are also some drawbacks and unknowns that require more
research and testing. What is certain is that natural gas use is on the rise at a rapid pace with no
signs of slowing down anytime soon.

We all know that oil reserves are finite, but while natural gas is also finite, the United States has
enough natural gas reserves to last about 110 years since 2009. This should be more than ample
time to transition to cleaner, more efficient energy sources. In the meantime, we can continue to use
natural gas, which actually burns cleaner than oil and coal. By switching over to this unconventional
energy source, the United States will actually put itself on a path to energy independence. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the US could be 97% energy independent by 2035.
There are more than 7.4 billion barrels worth of oil under North Dakota and 262 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas in the Marcellus Shale beneath Pennsylvania. This untapped energy could really stabilize
the countrys energy needs as it continues to strive for more efficient technologies.

On the downside, there are worries about fracking causing havoc with water supplies. The movie
Gasland shows a man lighting the water from his kitchen faucet on fire. The movie implies that this is
the result of methane seeping up from the ground due to shale drilling. In actuality, the mans own
water well was drilled into one of these naturally occurring methane pocket. Still, there have been
other reported incidents of methane seeping into water supplies. One such incident was in
Pennsylvania, where Chesapeake Energy was fined $1 million for not properly cementing the holes
created by drilling. By implementing stronger cement and processing casings, this issue can be
avoided.

Beyond the concern of contamination, these unconventional energy options of drilling into shale are
more expensive than coal or oil operations. This inherently drives up the cost of energy sources.
However, shale drilling and fracking is still cheaper than the development of renewable energies, such
as solar and wind power. An unfortunate side effect of this is that growth in the renewable sector has
been stunted.

There are still some points that need more research and development to make fracking more viable.
The waste water from the fracking fluid needs to be treated. About 7 million gallons of fracking fluid
is used on a single well, and contaminates in that fluid could have negative effects on the
environment. They cant simply be buried deep in the wells after the gas is extracted, because it is
believed this can cause small to moderate earthquakes. As it stands, treatment facilities arent able to
keep up with drilling, and with drilling expected to increase, its likely they will fall well behind.

The methane that environmentalists worry about contaminating water supplies also causes concerns
when it comes to climate change. Methane can trap 25 times the amount of heat that carbon dioxide
can, and it is uncertain how much escapes into the atmosphere during drilling. Fortunately, EPA
reports suggest that the amount escaping has decreased more than 30% since 2007.

As the industry grows, practices and technology improves. The industry is kept in check by
regulations to reduce pollutants, but they will need to weigh the risks and rewards as well as the cost
effectiveness of drilling with all of these regulations in place.

Source

About Glacial Energy: Glacial Energy is one of the fastest growing national retail energy suppliers
selling electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers in
deregulated markets across the country. Glacial Energy has the resources and market knowledge to
provide customized quotes for your business or cost-saving opportunities for your home. Learn more
about Glacial Energy by visiting: www.GlacialEnergy.com.

Fracking in Canada

Why the public outrage?

Hydraulic fracturing is a controversial gas extraction method used in North America. Also known as
fracking, it poses serious environmental and health concerns.

What is fracking?

Fracking involves pumping a cocktail of toxic chemicals mixed with water and sand as deep as 2.5 km
(1.5 miles) into the earth. The high pressure effectively creates mini earthquakes that break up rock
and release gas.

The type of gas that fracking retrieves is found packed tightly in shale rock deep underground. Before
fracking, this gas was impossible to retrieve, but as natural gas sources become increasingly scarce,
more dangerous methods of recovering gas, such
as fracking, are being used.
A toxic soup

Depending on the kind of fracking fluid used,

hundreds of chemicals may be used as additives
Water quantity concerns including:

A fundamental concern about fracking is its acetone

immense use of fresh water. The specific amount
ammonia
of water used depends on a variety of factors,
including what kind of earth is being drilled. benzene

For shale gas, the US Environmental Protection chlorine

Agency (EPA) states that 2 to 5 million gallons diesel
(about 7.5 to 19 million litres) of water may be
formaldehyde
needed per well when drilling in a shale
formation. One calculation estimated the amount hydrochloric acid
of water needed for 10 wells in the Horn River
kerosene
Basin of BC at more than 909,000 cubic metres
thats enough to fill over 360 Olympic-sized Some of the chemicals in the flowback fluid
swimming pools! include:

When this amount of water is extracted from arsenic

aquifers, groundwater, or surface water, the bromide
delicate balance of the natural environment is
cadmium
disrupted. In aquifers, chemical changes to
minerals can occur, as well as bacterial growth. cyanide

Water quality concerns lead

In order to break up the rock more effectively, mercury

additives are added to the fracking fluid. Some of
nickel
these ingredients are relatively benign, but others
are dangerous (see above for examples). radium

Much like a perfumes secret list of fragrances, the exact combinations and amounts of chemical
additives in fracking fluid are considered trade secrets and are therefore not revealed to the public.
Without this information, its impossible to analyze the exact impact the fluid has on the environment.

If these chemicals leach into the environment, they can contaminate clean drinking water. Substances
naturally found underground, such as radioactive elements, heavy metals, and gases, can also pose a
threat to health. Its possible that these substances are disrupted by the fracking process and can
then make their way into drinking water sources.

Once fracking is completed, the fluid flows back to the surface. According to the National Energy
Board, water that has been used for fracking shale gas is typically injected deep into the earth in
order to dispose of it. It can also be recycled and used at another fracking well or be taken to a
treatment facility. Water treatment requires extensive space and resources because of the amount of
chemicals the waste water contains.

However, not all the fluid is disposed of; only 15 to 80 percent of the fluid from shale gas is
recovered. Like the fracking fluid, this flowback also contains high concentrations of chemicals (see
above).

A recent study by a group of Cornell researchers concluded that fracking is worse for the environment
in terms of greenhouse gases than conventional sources of gas and oil. They estimated that methane
emissions from shale gas production are at least 30 percent higher than conventional gas production
methods.

Given the amount of water and chemicals used, its not surprising that fracking accidents such as
spills and leaks can, and do, occur. These cause environmental damage to groundwater aquifers and
drinking water, create air pollution, increase carbon dioxide emissions, generate wastewater disposal
problems, and lead to the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat.

Anti-fracking crusaders

Despite these concerns, fracking received little publicity until American filmmaker Josh Fox made the
documentary Gasland. After an energy company offered him money so they could drill on his familys
land, Fox became curious about fracking and set out to learn more about it. The result was Gasland
(gaslandthemovie.com).

Because of Foxs film, fracking is perhaps most well-known in the United States. However, fracking is
also occurring in Northern BC, Alberta, and Eastern Canada. Drilling in Two Island Lake in Northern
BC, dubbed the largest frack in the world, drew attention to fracking in Canada in 2010.

After fracking occurred near her home in Rosebud, Alberta, Jessica Ernst could light her water on fire.
This can occur when the methane content of water is too high. Underground sources of methane may
be released by the fracking process, although methane may also come from a natural source
decayed organic matter located near the earths surface. She has filed a lawsuit against the energy
company Encana for water contamination.

Most of my life Ive tried to live healthy, not just healthy foods, but also by living rurally, says Ernst,
and there I was, bathing in toxic chemicals. The oil industry denies that fracking is the cause of
high methane content in drinking water.

Ernst believes that although filing a lawsuit is both difficult and intimidating, it will be worthwhile even
if she does not win because of the attention she has brought to the issue. As she says, I understand
what Im up against and believe Im already victorious. One of her main goals, she explains, is
mandatory disclosure of the exact chemicals used in the fracking process.

The future of fracking

Its difficult to determine the future of fracking. In early 2010 the EPA announced it would launch a
formal investigation into frackings impact on drinking water. Their draft plan was released just over a
year later, and interim results should be ready in 2012.

The results of this study may impact fracking in Canada as well as the United States. However, the
problem is far from resolved, as those in the oil and mining industries continue to defend the process,
claiming that the pros outweigh the cons.

Nevertheless, Foxs documentary has spurred an outpouring of anti-fracking activism in Canada. (The
Canadian group Stop Fracking in Nova Scotia, for example, was inspired by Gasland).

Across the country, citizen groups (see below) are taking matters into their own hands and organizing
against fracking in their communities. Anti-fracking activists recently held a 600 km (372 mile) month-
long march to Montreal to protest shale gas. Furthermore, Quebec has ordered a moratorium on
fracking, while some New Brunswick citizens and First Nations leaders are calling for an outright ban.

Individual efforts can make a huge difference. Ernst urges all Canadians to act before fracking occurs
in their area. Once fracking begins, she explains, it becomes much more difficult to fight.
Signing petitions, contacting your local MP, and telling others about fracking are all simple but
important forms of activism that anyone can engage in. Ernst suggests writing open letters to local
politicians and sending copies to local newspapers so all residents can learn about the issue.

Water is much more critical than gas or oil. We can do better, proclaims Ernst. In the quest for
more energy, theres no need to put our health and the environment in jeopardy by prioritizing gas
over drinking water.

Too close to home

According to the Energy Board of Canada, there are 1,000 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Some of the
most prominent sites where fracking is occurring, or being evaluated, include:

Western Canada: Two Island Lake, Montney Basin, Horn River Basin, Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin, Horseshoe Canyon Area

Central Canada: Antrim Shale, Utica Shale, Marcellus Shale

Eastern Canada: Horton Bluff Shale

Want to get involved?

If the thought of your tap water on fire is enough to get your blood boiling, check out these Canadian
organizations involved in the anti-fracking movement.

Across Canada:

Fracking Canada frackingcanada.blogspot.com

Sierra Club Canada sierraclub.ca

The Council of Canadians canadians.org/water/issues/fracking/index.html

Western Canada:

Peace Environment and Safety Trustees bcpest.ca

BC Tap Water Alliance bctwa.org

Central Canada:

Stop Fracking Ontario stopfrackingontario.wordpress.com

No Fracking Way! Quebec nofrackingwayquebec.org

Eastern Canada:

Stop Fracking in Nova Scotia stopfrackinginnovascotia.ca

Ban Fracking New Brunswick banfrackingnb.ca

Ecology Action Centre ecologyaction.ca

Fracking: Pro, Con and (possible) Compromise for CA

KITSTOLZ@YAHOO.COM MARCH 5, 2013 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE LAND, THINKING OUT LOUD

The Wall Street Journal is excited about the possibilities of fracking for California:

California has Saudi Arabia-scale oil resources, notably in its largely untapped Monterey shale field,
which stretches northeast for more than 200 miles from Bakersfield in central California. New
technologies, especially smart, horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing, aka "fracking," make that oil
accessible, and cleanly. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the Monterey
shale field alone holds 15.4 billion barrels of oil, rivaling America's total conventional reserves.

California collects about $15 billion in tax revenues for every billion barrels of state oil production,
according to research conducted last year by the University of Wyoming's Timothy Considine and
Edward Manderson. If that is accurate, then simply by opening up Monterey oil developmentno
incentives, grants or state funds requiredtax receipts could total $250 billion over the coming two
decades. Economists Robert Hahn and Peter Passell, at the American Enterprise and Milken Institutes
respectively, point to another $30 billion to $80 billion in broad economic and social benefits that
ripple through an economy for every billion barrels of oil production.

This might sound like over-the-top boosterism, but yes, the US Energy Information Administration has
confirmed the vast reserves in the Monterey Shale formation, estimated to be 3/5ths the size of
Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, which was for decades this nation's biggest producing oil field.

But as so often has proved to be the case with the oil industry, the price of the potential economic
good news will be paid by the environment. Or so the EPA warns. In a recent report on emissions
from industrial sources, the agency revealed that the second biggest producer of greenhouse gas
(equivalent) emissions is the oil and gas industry. (This I learned from Breanna Norton, of Food and
Water Watch.)

Which is true, but when I went to the EPA, I learned it's not the whole story. Here's a bar graph from
the EPA, that shows how big power plants dominate emissions. Power plant emissions add up to
nearly 60% of the total, about 10x as much as the total emissions from oil and natural gas extraction.
[2,221 million tons of CO2 equivalent emissions for power plants, vs. 225 million for oil and natural
gas extraction]
Hence the importance of cleaning up power plants, which is what the newly appointed head of the
EPA, Gina McCarthy, is (from all accounts) set to do. If the EPA can reduce power plant emissions by
ten percent, that savings could offset the existing contribution of refineries, for example.

But meanwhile, in the words of Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch) fracking
continues to dominate exploration, and change the industry, for better or worse.

While the oil and natural gas sector includes a wide range of exploration and production activities,
fracking has become the primary method companies use to extract natural gas. Traditional drilling for
oil and gas has declined as reservoirs of easy-to-access oil and gas have been depleted. The top oil
and natural gas sources also indicate the large contribution fracking activities are making to the
industry sectors greenhouse gas emissions. The data was not collected on individual wells but
instead aggregated emissions from large production areas or basins. The highest emissions came
from New Mexicos San Juan Basin and Texas Permian Basin, where advances in horizontal drilling
and fracking have led to a boom in shale gas and shale oil production. Emissions from onshore
production (which includes fracking) were primarily methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 21
times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

In recent years, scientists and environmentalists have emphasized the polluting nature of fracking,
despite the repeated claims by industry about "clean natural gas." A Cornell University study showed
that fracking produces more greenhouse gas emissions over time than traditional methods of oil
drilling or coal mining, due to hauling in large quantities of water by truck and the methane released
from fracking wells. Since the EPA greenhouse gas data does not include emissions from
transportation, the total amount of emissions contributed by the oil and gas sector is likely
underreported. Greenhouse gas emissions are not the only concern involved in fracking; the drilling
method has been linked to a growing number of cases of water and land contamination.

It's not just about the climate, in other words, which explains why Food and Water Watch is tracking
fracking. But the invaluable Timm Herdt of the Ventura County Star, who has been reporting for the
paper from Sacramento for decades, reveals in an op-ed the inside story:

Environmentalists advocating strict regulation of fracking cited a Monterey Shale oil-drilling boom as a
certain prospect, while oil industry representatives downplayed the speculation, noting that results
from test wells so far have not been promising.

The oil reserves may exist, they said, but they may not be recoverable, at least not with current
technology.

Both sides had self-interested reasons for taking those views.

Environmental advocates are alarmed that fracking has been taking place for so long in California
without being subjected to any regulations beyond those that apply to all drilling operations. The
Department of Conservation is just now circulating a discussion draft of fracking rules it may put in
place, rules that environmentalists have criticized as too lenient.

The industry, which notes there has not been one reported instance of environmental damage caused
by fracking in California, seems resigned that an age of regulation has arrived, but wants standards
that are not overly intrusive or expensive with which to comply.

In other words, Herdt hints, a compromise could be in the offing for the state.

There may yet be some way, however, to differentiate between requirements that will be placed on
traditional operations at conventional California oil wells, which tap into underground reservoirs
beneath a layer of impermeable cap rock, and regulations targeted at emerging oil development that
will use different technologies in areas with different geologic features.

One such differentiation being discussed behind the scenes by some in Sacramento is a variation on
an old and controversial idea the establishment of an oil severance tax, but one that would apply
only to new wells.

An oil severance tax, in California, such as is paid by oil companies in radical leftist states such as
Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana? That would at least repay the state, if not the state's environment?

As the irresistible Wallace Shawn said in The Princess Bride: Inconceivable!

COAL BED METHANE: THE EVIL TWIN OF SHALE GAS
Posted on January 24, 2012 by radix

Coal Bed Methane (CBM), sometimes called Coal Seam Gas (mainly in Australia), is Shale Gass less
well known but equally destructive sibling in the family of extreme energy methods. Where once, if
a coal seam was too deep, too thin or too fractured to mine that was the end of it, now with rising
energy prices and constrained supplies more extreme methods are contemplated. If the seam is close
enough to the surface, this is likely to mean open cast mining. But, for deeper coal seams the worst
that can be done at the moment is to try to exploit any gas associated with the seam. I say at the
moment because slightly further along the extreme energy road we are heading down is the threat of
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), probably the most dangerous and destructive fossil fuel
exploitation method that has so far been considered (with the possible exception of the even more
speculative Methane Clathrate Mining). That, however, is a topic for another post. In the mean time
CBM is a serious threat that already been widely developed in the United States and Australia and is
ready to roll out across the British Isles.

Schematic of the Coal Bed Methane extraction process, including well and produced
water pumping system

Despite being less well known than Shale Gas, Coal Bed Methane, is, if anything, somewhat more
advanced in the British Isles than Shale Gas and poses as large or larger threat to communities and
the environment. There is planning permission for around 60 CBM wells in the British Isles compared
to at most a dozen Shale Gas wells. The main reason that Coal Bed Methane has been flying under
the radar seems to be that gas extraction from coal seams has been going on for quite some time,
abet in a very different form. Sealing up old mines and piping away the gas that builds up in them is
pretty much the simplest way to get gas out of coal formations and has been happening on a small
scale for a while, particularly in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands. However recently more
aggressive methods of methane extraction from coal seams have been imported from the United
States. This involves drilling into coal seams using the sort of technology more usually used by the oil
and gas industry, and using somewhat similar sorts of methods to Shale Gas. However, there are
some significant technical differences between CBM and Shale Gas, though in practice it makes little
difference to the overall effects.

A CBM well in the San Juan basin, New Mexico, undergoing process of cavitation to create
an underground chamber that expands the contact of the cleat system with the well
bore, to increase gas flow

The basic method (as with Shale Gas extraction) is to drill into the gas containing rock formation,
though for CBM it is a coal seam rather than a layer of shale. As with Shale Gas, more effort is
needed to get the gas out though. Unlike Shale Gas where the basic technique used, hydraulic
fracturing, is almost always the same, for Coal Bed Methane a wide variety of techniques are used
depending on the nature of the coal seam. If the seam is permeable enough, pumping water out of
the seam will be enough to start gas flowing from the well, but if not, some sort of stimulation will be
needed. Often this is hydraulic fracturing, like that used for Shale Gas, but an even more extreme
technique called cavitation (also known as open-hole cavity completion) can also be used, which
involves pumping water and air or foam into the well under very high pressure and then suddenly
releasing the pressure (sometimes likened to opening a shaken fizzy drink) causing gas, water, coal
and rock fragments to explode out of the well. This can last up to 15 minutes and be repeated dozens
of times and results in an enlargement of the initially drilled hole (well bore) by as much as 16 feet in
diameter in the coal seam, as well as producing fractures that extend from the well bore. Even if it
isnt necessary initially wells are often cavitated later on to try to slow the inevitable decline in gas
production.

However in some respects the technique used is of secondary importance. Unlike Shale Gas, the coal
seams that are exploited in this process tend to be relatively close to the surface, usually less than
1000 metres down, whereas the Bowland Shale in Lancashire can be at depths of more that 3000
metres. The closer proximity to the surface combined with the fact that it almost always involves
pumping large quantities of water out of the coal seam (water that has been marinading in coal for
thousands of years) means that the problems with water pollution and leaking methane tend to occur
regardless of whether fracking is performed. Being closer to the surface the chances of methane
migrating to surface (with the effects of fracking) are higher and the large amounts of water that
need to be pumped out of the coal seam (produced water) and disposed of somehow, means the
chances water contamination. The produced water can by up to five times as salty as seawater and
contain a wide variety of toxic contaminants. The cost to treat and dispose of the produced water can
be a critical factor in the viability of a coal bed methane project (producing a strong economic
incentive to cut corners and dump produced water illegally). Also, due to generally being much closer
to the surface and the large amounts of water that need to be pumped out of the coal seams,
subsidence can also be an issue. The massive pumping of ground water can also negatively affect
water tables and aquifer levels.

As with the exploitation of Shale Gas, Coal Bed Methane requires that very large numbers of wells
need to be drilled. During the recent boom in Coal Bed Methane in the United States over 5000 CBM
wells per year have typically been drilled. However despite these high levels of drilling effort CBM
production now appears to have peaked and in most US states with significant CBM production output
is declining. The problems associated with Coal Bed Methane in the United States have often been
similar to those experienced with Shale Gas. A good example of the impacts of CBM can be found in
the San Juan basin of northern New Mexico which ranks second only in CBM gas produced to the
Powder River basin of Wyoming. Some 23,000 wells producing wells feed gas through 3,000
compressors stations into a massive pipeline system in the high desert of canyons and mesas.
Formerly known for ancient pueblo peoples and more recently Apache, Ute and Navajo reservations
and cattle ranching, the landscape has been massively industrialised by CBM. Water contamination,
air pollution, increased traffic, accidents, spills etc. came as part of the package. Now the ranchers
are struggling because of the numbers of cattle being poisoned by the contaminated water.
Extensive coalbed methane (CBM) infrastructure in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico
surrounding places sacred to the Navajo and other native peoples

While Coal Bed Methane extraction has been underway in the United States for a while particularly in
Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming, Australia has more recently seen a significant amount
exploitation of CBM (usually referred to as Coal Seam Gas there). In Queensland alone over 3,000
wells have been drilled with projections of 40,000 to come. As with the US this has resulted in
widespread environmental and social issues. Coal Bed Methane extraction is now spreading across the
global most often into areas that had or continue to have large amounts of coal mining. While the UK
has been extensively mined for coal, with peak production occurring in the 1930s, and mine-able coal
is now largely exhausted (though companies like UK Coal are busy eking out the last dregs with
horrendous open cast mines), there is still a lot of coal that is too deep or in some other way
uneconomic to mine. This would be the target of Coal Methane Methane exploitation. In particular
traditional coal mining areas like the North East, the Midlands, South Wales and Scotland are
threatened, but other areas that have never seen any significant coal mining may also have deep coal
seams that could be exploited.

Unlike Shale Gas where there is a clear leader in the race to exploit it in the form of Cuadrilla
Resources, for Coal Bed Methane there are number of different companies that are well advanced in
their schemes. These companies include Dart Energy (Scotland), Greenpark Energy (Yorkshire and
Scotland) which was recently bought by Dart Energy, IGas Energy (Cheshire) and UK Methane (South
Wales). In particular IGas Energy and Dart Energy (who bought out the the previous company
Composite Energy) are already producing gas on a small scale. IGas has a well at Doe Green near
Warrington that is producing gas to generate electricity. Their CEO, Andrew Austin, admitted to a
parliamentary select committee in March 2011 that they have fracked the well. Greenpark Energy is
also engaged in fracking CBM wells in Scotland. IGas are busy drilling another well at the site and
have planning permission for two more sites near Ellesmere Port and one are Barton in Cheshire.
Meanwhile in Scotland Dart Energy (formerly Composite Energy) have drilled a number of wells
around Airth near Falkirk and has just signed a 300 million contract to provide gas to Scotia Gas
Networks. Both IGas and Dart also plan to explore for shale gas in some areas.

12 day blockade in Dec 2011 which halted CBM exploration drilling in Gloucester, New
South Wales

However UK Methane, mainly in South Wales, and Greenpark Energy (now owned by Dart Energy),
mainly in Yorkshire and Scotland, are also well advanced in their plans for exploiting Coal Bed
Methane in those areas. In particular Greenpark has planning permission for 17 wells and a gas
compressor station in Dumfries and Galloway very close to the border with England, with a number of
sites with planning permission south of the border as well. UK Methane is another company with a
strong interest in CBM and is particularly active in South Wales. Another player is Coastal Oil and Gas
who unlike most other companies seems to be hedging its bets and is pushing both Shale Gas and
Coal Bed Methane in tandem, rather than concentrating on just one at present. So far these
companies have encountered close to zero resistance to their plans, partially due to clever public
relations work but mainly to the fact that everyone who cares has been focused on Shale Gas.
However in places where the impacts are already clear, particularly in Australia and Canada, there
has been significant resistance to CBM with several successful blockades of CBM related
developments. If similar levels of resistance do not soon appear in the British Isles it seems likely that
we are looking at a huge expansion of CBM in the coming years with all the attendant consquences.
'Fracking in the Dark': Why it Must Stop
By Brian Stallard

Aug 03, 2014 05:37 PM EDT

Researchers have found that shale-gas extraction across the globe is severally outpacing an
understanding of the industry's environmental impact. Because of this, explores claim that the
industry is "fracking in the dark," choosing locations for extraction without considering all the
environmental consequences.

According to a study recently published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
shale-gas production is expected to surge in the next three decades, resulting in a widening of the
gap between scientific understanding of fracking consequences and the industry's influence on the
Earth.

"We can't let shale development outpace our understanding of its environmental impacts," co-author
Morgan Tingley said in a recent statement. "The past has taught us that environmental impacts of
large-scale development and resource extraction, whether coal plants, large dams or biofuel
monocultures, are more than the sum of their parts."

And this is certainly true. Nature World News reported just last week how consequences of the
industrial revolution even reached the South Pole decades before humanity did.

In this latest study, researchers scrambled to better understand the long-term contributions fracking
makes to air, water, noise and even light pollution.

(Photo : Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment/Princeton University PR) Various forms of fracking
pollution

"Think about the landscape and its habitats as a canvas," explained Viorel Popescu, a co-author of
the study. "At first, the few well pads, roads and pipelines from shale development seem like tiny
holes and cuts, and the canvas still holds. But if you look at a heavily developed landscape down the
road, you see more holes and cuts than natural habitats. Forests or grasslands that were once
continuous are now islands fragmented by a dense web of roads, pipelines and well pads. At what
point does the canvas fall apart? And what are the ecological implications for wide-ranging, sensitive
species such as caribou or grizzly bears?"

And that's not even considering the more extensively studied direct impacts of fracking - potential
ground water contamination, root degradation and soil erosion.

Amazingly, information is so lacking that in a chemical assessment of 150 wells in three top-gas
producing American states, the researchers found that two out of three wells were fractured with at
least one undisclosed chemical, and some used 20 chemicals or more.

The authors concluded that to truly see the whole metaphorical canvas, all the data must be
provided, and that's something that governments and the industry must ensure. Otherwise, they will
just keep "fracking in the dark" at the cost of the Earth's well being.

Disappearing Groundwater: An Unrealized Threat to Our Future

By Jenna Iacurci

Aug 21, 2014 01:28 PM EDT

To counter the ongoing drought in the western United States, we are using aquifers to pump
irreplaceable groundwater from the earth and into people's homes. But once this nonrenewable
supply is tapped out, the real crisis begins.

Disappearing groundwater is the out-of-sight, out-of-mind threat that can potentially change how and
where we live and grow food, among other things.

Groundwater comes from aquifers - sponge-like gravel and sand-filled underground reservoirs - that
provide populations with freshwater to make up for surface water lost from drought-depleted lakes,
rivers and reservoirs.

However, what we often don't realize is that as we continue to rely on this hidden resource, we are
actually depleting a water supply that's used to meet half of our water needs, the US Geological
Survey reports. The current drought shrinks surface water in lakes, rivers and reservoirs, and so we
grow more dependent on groundwater from aquifers. Some shallow aquifers recharge from surface
water, while others deep in the ground contain ancient, or "fossil," water locked in the earth - a
supply that is not everlasting.

"These aquifers typically cannot recharge, and once this 'fossil' water is gone, it is gone forever,"
wrote National Geographic.

Deadly Droughts Leading to Water Scarcity

It's no secret that the western United States - as well as other parts of the world - is currently
suffering from a three-year-long drought. The Colorado River Basin, for one, is drying up and losing
water at dramatic rates. According to a NASA study published in the journal Geophysical Research
Letters, the basin has lost nearly 53 million acre feet of freshwater since 2004, taking away far more
water than the region can hope to refill - a real concern considering that it supplies water to 40
million people in seven states. Researchers also determined that more than 75 percent of this water
loss is being replenished by underground resources.
"We don't know exactly how much groundwater we have left, so we don't know when we're going to
run out," Stephanie Castle, a water resources specialist at the University of California, Irvine,
explained in a NASA news release.

"We thought that the picture could be pretty bad, but this was shocking," she added.

(Photo : Reuters/Mario Anzuoni)

Perhaps a more cited example, the ongoing California drought - now approaching four years long -
has depleted snowpacks, rivers and lakes, and groundwater use has soared to make up the
difference.

A new report from Stanford University says that nearly 60 percent of the state's water needs are now
met by groundwater, up from 40 percent in years when rain and snow fall were normal.

California's Central Valley isn't the only place where water supplies are declining. Nature World
News recently reported how water scarcity in Iran is becoming a national emergency. During the hot
summer months, the nation has been fighting arid temperatures and notable water supply drops, with
lower-than-average precipitation levels leaving the great majority of the region's dams and waterways
under desired capacity.
(Photo: Reuters)

While climate change is partly to blame for this water shortage, the people of Iran themselves are
exacerbating the problem.

"Despite imminent shortages, water use in Iran remains inefficient, with domestic use 70 percent
higher than the global average," the organization Future Directions International (FDI) reports.

An estimated 75 million people comprise the Iranian population, and the government continues to
warn them that greater water conservation efforts are necessary.

However, this plan has backfired before.

"Several years ago there was water rationing. Each day, water would be cut for several hours in
different parts of Tehran," environmental expert Esmail Karhom told local media, according to a
report from the Orsam Water Bulletin. "Out of fear of running out of water, people would store so
much water [before the scheduled cuts] that their consumption ended up being higher than usual."

Trying to Gain Ground

Relying on groundwater does make up for shrinking surface water supplies, but at a price. Well-
drillers in California are working overtime to gain access to groundwater via aquifers, at a cost of
more than $300,000 for a single well for all the farmers and homeowners waiting in line, according to
National Geographic.

And given this increased drilling rate, aquifers aren't given enough time to recharge before they are
pumped of water again. Worse still, as aquifers are depleted, the land also begins to subside, or sink.

Additionally, hydraulic fracturing - a water-intensive drilling process for oil and gas known as
"fracking" - isn't helping. According to a February report from CERES, an organization that advocates
sustainable business practices, more than one-third of these fracking wells are in regions already
suffering groundwater depletion.

Now that we are aware of the problem, what are we doing to try to solve it? NASA's GRACE satellites,
for one, have allowed us to more accurately understand groundwater supplies and depletion rates,
National Geographic notes. GRACE has allowed us to identify which regions are particularly vulnerable
to drought and shrinking water supplies - including northern India, the North China Plain and the
Middle East.

(Photo : Pixabay)

China, also challenged by water scarcity, is planning a multi-billion dollar water transfer project to
transfer water from the south to the north. However, researchers behind a study published in the
journal Environmental Science & Technology claim that while international imports can lessen the
water burden in strained regions, inter-province trade just makes things worse.

"Importing water-intensive goods from one water-scarce region to another doesn't solve the problem
of water scarcity - it just shifts the pressure to other regions," study co-author Klaus Hubacek said in
a statement.

As for the United States, there are currently no statewide regulations limiting groundwater use. State
legislators are contemplating implementing such a policy, but even if it passes, compliance plans
wouldn't be required until 2020, and full restrictions wouldn't kick in until 2040. Until then, California
property owners can pump water to their heart's desire from under the ground they own.

"We're long overdue in California to treat groundwater as an integral part of our water supply system,
and we need to not only address our use of groundwater with respect to quantity, but also quality,"
Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D), author of the Assembly's version of the bill, told The Washington
Post. "The old phrase 'never let a good crisis go to waste' applies."