By now, if you have any interest in water, energy, international security and politics, climate change, environmental impacts on small communities, or any number of other issues of the day, you have seen, heard, or read something about "fracking" -- the shorthand name for the process of hydraulic fracturing.
Are you confused by the debate over fracking?
I'm not surprised. The public debate is complex, angry, boisterous, a mix of science intertwined with politics, and complicated by a lack of information (or even intentional disinformation) on all sides. And like many other complex problems, the reality is often somewhere in between the extreme points of view that are highlighted in the media, which seems less and less able to appreciate, report, and acknowledge nuance and subtlety around complex scientific issues.
Fracking is not good or bad: it is a process to increase the production of fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, from certain geological formations. But good or bad things can happen as a result of fracking, depending on how it is implemented, where it is pursued, the technologies used, and the actions taken to increase its benefits and reduce its impacts. And whether or not you support or oppose fracking depends on how those benefits and impacts are perceived, distributed, addressed, and valued -- and whether it is in your backyard.
Do you benefit economically from fracking operations? Do you support U.S. energy independence and hope that fracking will reduce U.S. imports of imported energy? Do you worry about climate change and feel that fracking can help reduce dependence on much dirtier coal by increasing availability of cleaner burning natural gas? Then you're likely to support expanded fracking. Some have hailed it as a game-changer that promises increased energy independence, job creation, and lower energy prices.
But do you live in a rural community where the impacts of expanded drilling, extraction operations, and water contamination are being felt? Do you worry that your local environmental and social costs outweigh the economic benefits that are likely to accrue to other parties? Do you feel that U.S. national energy priorities should be to reduce all fossil fuel combustion in favor of domestic renewable energy production? Do you feel that regulatory oversight and environmental enforcement is insufficient to protect against the downsides of rapid expansion of fracking operations? Then you're likely to oppose expanded fracking. And opponents have called for a temporary moratorium or even a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing due to concern over environmental, social, and public health concerns.
There ARE some fracking facts that are relevant (as opposed to opinion):
The Pacific Institute has just released a new study on the issues associated with fracking, especially risks to the nation's water resources. Authored by Heather Cooley and Kristina Donnelly, this assessment was based on extensive interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders, including the industry itself, representatives from state and federal agencies, academia, environmental groups, and community-based organizations from across the United States. When honest and open discussions occur, there is surprising agreement among them about the range of concerns and issues associated with hydraulic fracturing. The top six key concerns were:
What is critically apparent is that the dialogue about hydraulic fracturing -- to the extent there has been a dialogue rather than a series of monologues -- has been marked by confusion and obfuscation due to a lack of clarity about the terms used, serious data and information gaps, and ideological positions. A more fruitful and informed debate is the only thing likely to lead to appropriate energy, water, and environmental policies. But the current debate is rarely well-informed, and even less frequently, fruitful. Can we figure out how to reap the benefits of fracking without suffering, unnecessarily, the adverse costs? If not, opposition will continue to grow, and it will be deserved.
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
The activists need conflict for fund raising so detail are irrelevant and good movie making is critical for the activists organizational incomes. Even News Media can't make a living talking about the details of water chemistry when most of their readers don't even know freshman chemistry.
What about the fact that the same Advertising firm that lied incessantly for the tobacco industry is now working for the Natural Gas industry - Hill and Knowlton?
Don't you know, The Sky is Pink -
http://vimeo.com/44367635
We've already seen how they are working the system to escape any oversight and accountability for their operations by exempting themselves from regulations and pushing legislation like the "Haliburton Loophole" allowing them to inject hundreds of unknown poisons into the ground with impunity.
They cannot be trusted because we've seen in the past the ways in which they will endanger human lives and the environment in the name of higher profits.
No, no, a thousand times no. The risk of widespread damage are just too great.
once in place, it will grow & autos will use it too
fund the seed money w/ a tax on way too cheap petrol if u must
T Boone Pickens has the right idea
I cant understand why T baggers would have a problem - isnt energy security pretty much their whole MO
or til its too late to matter
it just appeared & then folks water went sour
fanned
Or well casings failures, which happen at a rate of about 6% for the first year and increase to over 50% in 20 years. Not to mention the spills and leaks of drilling mud, flobwack. The leaking of the lined pits to hold drilling tailing or fracking flowback, liners are typically polyethylene which can tare or puncture easily (when liners are required) or the spills from transportation of fluids as well as intentionally ignoring regulations and dumping drilling materials into remote streams and creeks,
Gas in the water http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFDNyhKcSY&feature=player_embedded
Fracking Hell http://goo.gl/x6STk
and these …
Oilsands damage http://goo.gl/YnPiw
Think Progress on the tar sands http://goo.gl/aBUhc
totally agree - all very iffy
(B) U.S infrastructure for natural gas is maxed-out. Even if we could increase production, there is nowhere to put it. Even with exports helping ease the overflow and proposed NLG (Natural Liquid Gas) plants, we still have a wasted surplus. The overhead costs of any type of energy production are huge, so the energy companies are forced to keep production going even if it means misrepresenting actual productivity rates and longevity of wells. They have to expand or risk going under. Rates will not go any lower since international demand is already met. Remember, natural gas is only an alternative fuel. It isn't like oil which can be used in many forms across many industries.
Energy companies have backed themselves into this proverbial wall and can't get out, since getting out means folding. Their lies have brought us to this situation, along with uniformed landowners and politicians.
not saying u r wrong, just news to me
pipes to the disparate wells - lacking - sure
trunk lines - my guess - best infrastructure in the world
It's always hilarious how conservatives claim we can't have energy or an economy without destroying rule of law. Such mindless drones, or else just dutiful shills.