Pros and Cons of Fracking

A Case Study

Roselle Marie D. Azucena, MAN,MBA

Case Abstract:

Hydraulic fracturing (also hydrofracturing, hydrofracking, fracking or fraccing) is a

well-stimulation technique in which rock is fractured by a pressurized liquid. The

process involves the high-pressure injection of 'fracking fluid' (primarily water,

containing sand and other proppants suspended with the aid of gelling agents) into a

wellbore to create cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas,

petroleum, and brine will flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from

the well, small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppants (either sand or aluminium oxide)

hold the fractures open.[1]

Hydraulic fracturing began as an experiment in 1947, and the first commercially

successful application followed in 1950. As of 2012, 2.5 million "frac jobs" had been

performed worldwide on oil and gas wells; over one million of those within the U.S.[2][3]

Such treatment is generally necessary to achieve adequate flow rates in shale gas, tight

gas, tight oil, and coal seam gas wells.[4] Some hydraulic fractures can form naturally in

certain veins or dikes.[5]

Hydraulic fracturing is highly controversial in many countries. Its proponents advocate

the economic benefits of more extensively accessible hydrocarbons.[6][7] However

opponents argue that these are out-weighed by the environmental impacts, which

include the risks of contaminating ground and surface water; causing air and noise

pollution and potentially triggering earthquakes, along with the consequential hazards to

public health and the environment.[8][9]

The following are the enumerated reason going for Fracking:

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; it’s 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, methane’s

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 that’s not the fracking

– that’s just a matter of making sure that the steel tubing, the casing, is not leaking and

that the cement around it doesn’t have cracks. Certain geologies, such as those in

Pennsylvania’s 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 it’s 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.

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. We’ve

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 it’s worth remembering that drilling operations and rigs

don’t go on forever – it’s 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, it’s 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, we’re 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.

We’ve 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.

There’s 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

Statement of the Problem:

Is the Use of Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) to Extract Natural Gas more

Advantageous?

Alternative Solutions:

1.Five (5) Technologies for Cleaner Shale Energy: GasFrac is one of a growing

number of companies, including giant GE and the oil services firm Halliburton, that are

pioneering technological improvements to mitigate some of the environmental

downsides to the process that has spurred a North American energy boom

A. Water-Free Fracking: GasFrac's fracking system, which uses a gelled fluid

containing propane, has other advantages besides eliminating the need for water,

according to Hill. Because the gel retains sand better than water, it's possible to get the

same results with one-eighth the liquid and to pump at a slower rate. Because GasFrac

says the amount of hydrocarbon in the gel is comparable to what's in the ground, the

fluid can simply merge into the flow being extracted from the ground, eliminating the

need to drain contaminated wastewater and haul it away in trucks for disposal, usually

at deep-well injection sites. "We present a much smaller footprint," he said. (See

related, "Fracking Waste Wells Linked to Ohio Earthquakes.")

B. Using Recycled Water or Brine: While fracking typically uses freshwater, industry

researchers have worked to perfect friction-reducing additives that would allow

operators to use recycled "gray" water or brine pumped from underground. Halliburton's

UniStim, which went on the market about a year ago, can create a highly viscous fluid

from any quality of water, according to Stephen Ingram, the company's technology

manager for North America. In northeastern Canada, one producer has tapped into a

deep subsurface saline water aquifer for a portion of its supplies for hydraulic fracturing.

C. Eliminating Diesel Fumes: The diesel-powered equipment used in drilling and

pumping wells can be a worrisome source of harmful pollutants such as particulates, as

well as carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. And diesel fuel is

expensive. Last year, Apache, a Houston-based oil and gas operator, announced it

would become the first company to power an entire fracking job with engines using

natural gas. In addition to reducing emissions, the company cut its fuel costs by 40

percent. Halliburton has introduced another innovation, the SandCastle vertical storage

silo for the sand used in fracking, which is powered by solar panels. The company also

has developed natural-gas-powered pump trucks, which Ingram said can reduce diesel

consumption on a site by 60 to 70 percent, resulting in "a sizable reduction in both

emissions and cost."

Drainage water pours into a settling pond near the booming oil fields of the Midland-

Odessa region of West Texas.

D. Treating Wastewater: At hydraulic fracturing sites, the amount of wastewater

typically far exceeds the amount of oil produced. The fluid that returns to the surface

through the well bore is not only the chemically treated frack water, but water from the

rock formation that can contains brines, metals, and radionuclides. (See related,

"Forcing Gas Out of Rock With Water.") That wastewater must be captured and stored

on site, and then often is shipped long distances to deep well injection underground

storage facilities. There have been few treatment options. But Halliburton has

developed the Clean Wave treatment system, which uses positively charged ions and

bubbles to remove particles from the water at the fracking site. Last September, GE and

its partner Memsys also tested a new on-site treatment system that allows the water to

be reused without being diluted with freshwater, by employing a desalination process

called membrane distillation. (See related Quiz: What You Don't Know About Water and

Energy.

E. Plugging Methane Leaks: A major fracking concern has been whether companies

are allowing a significant amount of natural gas to escape, because methane—the main

component of natural gas—is a potent greenhouse gas, 34 times stronger than carbon

dioxide (CO2). A recent study concluded U.S. methane emissions are likely 50 percent

higher than official government estimates. (See related, "Methane Emissions Far Worse

Than U.S. Estimates.") New U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that go

into effect next year will require that all U.S. oil and gas sites have equipment designed

to cut a wide range of pollutants, a step that the agency expects will cut methane. (See

related, "Air Pollution From Fracked Wells Will Be Regulated Under New U.S. Rules.")

Methane emissions from onshore oil and natural gas production could be reduced by 40

percent by 2018, at a cost that's the equivalent of just one cent per thousand cubic feet

of natural gas produced, concludes a just-released study, conducted by Fairfax, Va.-

based consulting firm ICF International for the Environmental Defense Fund. EDF's

Ratner said that inspectors equipped with infrared cameras can spot leaks at fracking

sites, which can then be plugged. "The cameras cost about $80,000 to $100,000

apiece," he noted. "But that can pay for itself, because the more leaks you fix, the more

gas you have to sell." (See related blog post: "Simple Fixes Could Plug Methane Leaks

From Energy Industry, Study Finds.")

Another improvement that can reduce methane emissions: Replacing conventional

pressure-monitoring pneumatic controllers, which are driven by gas pressure and vent

gas when they operate. A U.S.-wide move to lower-bleed designs could reduce

emissions by 35 billion cubic feet annually. And switching out conventional chemical

injection pumps used in the fracking process, which are powered by gas pressure from

the wells, and replacing them with solar-powered pumps, operators could eliminate an

5.9 billion cubic feet of methane emissions annually, the EDF report concludes.

The Cost-Benefit Equation

Some solutions do not require advanced technology. A study released Wednesday by

the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force suggests that almost all of the methane leaks

from the oil and gas infrastructure could be reduced at relatively little expense, often by

simply tightening bolts or replacing worn seals.

A number of greener fracking technologies already are being implemented, according to

industry officials. But one obstacle is economic. The newer, more environmentally

friendly technologies generally cost more than the legacy equipment they would

replace. Extracting natural gas with water-free fracking, for example, could cost 25

percent more than conventional fracking, according to David Burnett, a professor of

petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University who heads that school's

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Program. He said that switching fracking

equipment from diesel to natural gas is the innovation that's catching on most rapidly,

because it provides a clear economic benefit as well as helping to lower carbon

emissions. With the rising cost of renting fracking rigs, companies are eager to find

improvements that will reduce their costs, he said.

Green fracking is "the same as with any industry—if you come out with a game-

changing technology, you can get in the market first and ride that," Burnett said.  

But Halliburton's Ingram said that innovations such as chemical treatments to make

brine usable will drop in price as the technology is perfected. "Eventually it will become

the lower-cost chemistry," he said.

2.Fossil Fuels:

The World's Fossil Fuels are a finite resource that will be consumed within 500 years

at present and projected future rates of consumption. In addition these are often

accompanied by substantial pollutants and of course their major waste by-product,

carbon-dioxide gas, is the major Greenhouse emission of concern.

There is general consensus within the Scientific Community that a new phase of

global warming induced by carbon-dioxide emissions is currently underway and that the

World's temperature will rise significantly within the next century. There is still

substantial debate about the climatic consequences of this temperature rise although

there is little doubt that the world's climate will be different in 100 years time if we

continue to increase our rate of consumption of fossil fuels. Given that there is no clear

consensus on the outcome of the global warming and that some of the consequences

are very dire indeed, the safe course of action is to limit the amount of Global Warming

and hence to limit the amount of Greenhouse gas emission.

3.Oil:

Oil is the most precious and least abundant of the world's fossil fuels. Never-the-less

the amount of Oil on the Earth is likely at least the range of several trillion barrels of Oil

once non-conventional sources of Oil are considered. These include the Heavy Oil

deposits of South America, the Oil sands of Western Canada and shale Oil found

throughout the World. In addition as the price of Oil increases, previously abandoned

fields become economic to re-extract. Consequently despite constantly increasing Oil

production throughout the world, there is likely at least a century of usable Oil available

in the world. A more useful question is: At what price will petroleum and gasoline be

widely displaced as the fuel of choice for transport? It has already been largely

displaced as a fuel for Electricity.

4.Coal

Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel. It is found throughout the world and current

proven reserves are sufficient for at least 300 years of exploitation. Although coal is

cheap, it is dangerous to mine (thousands of miners die every year all over the world)

and is bulky and expensive to transport. Because coal has relatively low energy content

for its weight, a lot of it is required to produce a given amount of electricity. For example,

A 1000 MW coal power station requires about 8,600,000 kg of coal per day, compared

to 74 kg per day of uranium for the equivalent sized nuclear power plant. In addition

coal-based power plants produce vast amounts of pollutants, including radioactivity, in

addition to the C02 emissions which contribute to global-warming.

5.Natural Gas

Natural Gas reserves are intermediate between Coal and Oil. It is currently the most

favoured fuel source for new electricity production with the USA. Natural gas combined-

cycle generators can reach 60% efficiency for converting heat energy into electricity.

Natural gas also produces 40 -50 % fewer CO2 emissions for the same amount of

electricity generated as Coal. However the price of Natural Gas is steadily rising and the

costs associated with sequestration of the generated CO2 are not yet included in the

price of electricity passed on the consumer.

6. Nuclear Fission

The cost of Nuclear Fission Power is dominated by the capital cost of construction

of the plant. These reactors also have significant increases in Uranium efficiency and

substantial increases in operating life of the plant (60 years). In addition the proponents

claim a ten-fold increase in safety of operation over previous generation reactors.

Disposal of Nuclear Waste remains a topic of intense debate and controversy.

Nuclear Fission is currently unique in that the costs of decommissioning and waste

disposal are fully reflected in the price of the generated electricity.

The nuclear industry has longer-term plans to develop advanced reactors that are

over 50 times more efficient in their use of Uranium and which consume a large fraction

of the long-lived waste generated from current (2nd generation) reactors. In addition

these plants may also be used to efficiently produce Hydrogen for use as a

transportation fuel and to de-salinate sea water. These are the Fourth

Generation Nuclear Reactors and are not expected to be ready for deployment before

2020.

There is a large and very vocal opposition to Nuclear Fission power because of the

radioactive material produced in the process of generating energy and from Nuclear

Proliferation concerns. There are also claims that Nuclear Power is more

expensive than alternative energy generation schemes. There are also numerous

websites and a document that counter such claims and offer strong opinion that Nuclear

Power is the best energy option.

7.Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear Fusion is often proposed as the ultimate energy source. Great progress has

been made in this field in the 50 years since it was first proposed. Construction has

started for the next generation Fusion Test Reactor (the ITER). Its projected start date is

2016. It will be operated for the 10 years following to learn the about the Physics and

Engineering required to build and operate a commercially competitive Power Plant. It is

projected to produce 500 MegaWatts of energy at full power. However much research

and development still needs to be done on the project.

8. Solar

Solar energy has made significant progress and is displacing fossil fuel technologies

from many niche applications.

a. Solar Thermal

These are technologies that concentrate sunlight to produce intense heat or light. Many

significant technology hurdles have been overcome through ingenious design and the

use of advanced materials. Nevertheless despite many years of effort these

technologies produce electricity at far higher cost than coal-based production. The

exceptions are when these are located in sunlight rich regions with poor access of

Fossil Fuels or where the full cost of Fossil Fuels are passed on to the consumer. Solar

b. Solar PhotoVoltaics

PhotoVoltaic systems convert sunlight directly into electricity by utilizing the

Quantum-Mechanical properties of light. There has been great progress at both

increasing the efficiency of solar cells for use in concentrator systems and in decreasing

the cost of large array converters.

9.Wind

Wind Power utilizes modern-versions of wind-mills to produce electricity. Its use is

growing world-wide. In countries with high-cost electricity production, favorable

geography and anti-nuclear policies, it is almost cost-competitive with conventional

electricity generation as an additional source of power-production. Its main drawback is

its intermittent availability. This means that on average it produces only about 25 -35%

of its peak capacity when averaged over a year and so it requires backup for windless

days. Large-scale wind use requires capital to both build the wind-powered turbines and

backup facilities.

There is a vocal environmental opposition to Wind Power from those who oppose

the visual impact of wind-turbines on the landscape, its danger to bird life and noise.

There are numerous websites that counter such claims.

10.Biomass

Biomass projects utilize various biological processes to generate hydrocarbon fuels

like Methane Gas and Diesel fuel. Modern Biomass projects focus on methane gas from

refuse and biodiesel fuel from algae, plants and waste products.

There is intense, world-wide research into this energy source as Biodiesel could well

become cost competitive as the price of conventional Oil increases. There are

numerous hobbyists who create Biodiesel fuel for their own use.

However, presently available crops are rather inefficient at converting sunlight into

useful fuel which makes biomass unsuitable for large-scale electricity production. 

11.Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy relies on converting heat trapped underground to generate

useful power. In most cases this means converting the heat to electricity via the same

techniques employed by Fossil Fuel power stations. There are in addition several

locations in the world where Geothermal energy is also used to provide district heating.

Geothermal has the advantage over Wind and Solar power of being available 24

hours a day.

CONCLUSIONS:

"Natural gas is a cornerstone of some countries economy, providing a quarter of

the country’s total energy. It 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.

Four major areas of concern has been identified with the use of Fracking as

source of energy: (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. If effective environmental action is not

taken today, the potential environmental consequences will grow .Effective action

requires both strong regulation and a shale gas industry in which all participating

companies are committed to continuous improvement.

There has been a rapid expansion of production and rapid change in technology

and field practice that lead to adaptation and evolvement of regulations. Added to

this is the industry’s 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 for the continuous improvement of shale gas production in

reducing existing and potential undesirable impacts through a cooperative effort

among the public, companies in the industry, and regulators.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The use of Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) to Extract Natural Gas is more

Advantageous

On the identified potential mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing could affect

drinking water resources...the US Global Survey report that they 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, they 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.

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.

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

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 this extraction will improve

how waste are managed and eventually protect water . Also while challenges

continue to exist with water availability and water management, innovative

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."

Fracking has become a major methodology to produce energy that are cost

effective compared to coal and oil. To quote 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 aren’t as well

known, but the effect of fracking on global energy production will be huge.”

Another point to raise going for Fracking is that Global warming is a serious issue

that fracking-related gas production can help to alleviate... Mankind’s 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."

Gas is surely going to be an important part of the mix for many years to come.

There is really no reason why properly regulated fracking should not proceed

"The key is to reduce the environmental costs as much as possible, while making

the most of the environmental benefits."

References

1. Luca Gandossi, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport (2013). An overview of hydraulic fracturing and other formation stimulation technologies for shale gas production (pdf). Scientific and Technical Research

series. (Report) (European Commission Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union). Retrieved 29 May 2015.

2. King, George E (2012), Hydraulic fracturing 101 (PDF), Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper 152596

3. Staff. "State by state maps of hydraulic fracturing in US.". Fractracker.org. Retrieved 19 October 2013.

4. Charlez, Philippe A. (1997). Rock Mechanics: Petroleum Applications. Paris: Editions Technip. p. 239. ISBN 9782710805861. Retrieved 2012-05-14.

5. Blundell D., (2005). "Processes of tectonism, magmatism and mineralization: Lessons from Europe". Ore Geology Reviews 27: 340.

6. IEA (29 May 2012). Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas. World Energy Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas (PDF). OECD. pp. 18–27.

7. Hillard Huntington et al. EMF 26: Changing the Game? Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies Report. Stanford University. Energy Modeling Forum, 2013.

8. Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01.

9. V. J. Brown (February 2014). "Radionuclides in Fracking Wastewater: Managing a Toxic Blend". 122 (2). Environmental Health Perspectives. p. A50. Retrieved 27 May 2015.

10.Kim, Won-Young 'Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio', Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth

11. US Geological Survey, Produced water, overview, accessed 8 Nov. 2014.12.Jared Metzker (7 August 2013). "Govt, Energy Industry Accused of Suppressing

Fracking Dangers". Inter Press Service. Retrieved 28 December 2013.13. Patel, Tara (31 March 2011). "The French Public Says No to  ' Le Fracking  ' " .

Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 22 February 2012.14.Patel, Tara (4 October 2011). "France to Keep Fracking Ban to Protect

Environment, Sarkozy Says". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 22 February 2012.

15."Commission recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing (2014/70/EU)". Official Journal of the European Union. 22 January 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.

16. Fjaer, E. (2008). "Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing". Petroleum related rock mechanics. Developments in petroleum science (2nd ed.). Elsevier. p. 369. ISBN 978-0-444-50260-5. Retrieved 2012-05-14.

17.Price, N. J.; Cosgrove, J. W. (1990). Analysis of geological structures. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–33. ISBN 978-0-521-31958-4. Retrieved 5 November 2011.

18. Manthei, G.; Eisenblätter, J.; Kamlot, P. (2003). "Stress measurement in salt mines using a special hydraulic fracturing borehole tool". In Natau, Fecker & Pimentel. Geotechnical Measurements and Modelling (PDF). pp. 355–360. ISBN 90-5809-603-3. Retrieved 6 March 2012.

19.Zoback, M.D. (2007). Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press. p. 18. ISBN 9780521146197. Retrieved 6 March 2012.

20. Laubach, S. E.; Reed, R. M.; Olson, J. E.; Lander, R. H.; Bonnell, L. M. (2004). "Coevolution of crack-seal texture and fracture porosity in sedimentary rocks: cathodoluminescence observations of regional fractures". Journal of Structural Geology (Elsevier) 26 (5): 967–982. Bibcode:2004JSG....26..967L. doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2003.08.019. Retrieved 5 November 2011.

21.Sibson, R. H.; Moore, J.; Rankin, A. H. (1975). "Seismic pumping--a hydrothermal fluid transport mechanism". Journal of the Geological Society (London: Geological Society) 131 (6): 653–659. doi:10.1144/gsjgs.131.6.0653. (subscription required). Retrieved 5 November 2011.

22.Gill, R. (2010). Igneous rocks and processes: a practical guide. John Wiley and Sons. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-4443-3065-6. Retrieved 5 November 2011.

23. "Shooters – A "Fracking" History". American Oil & Gas Historical Society. Retrieved 12 October 2014.

24."Acid fracturing" . Society of Petroleum Engineers. Retrieved 12 October 2014.25. Montgomery, Carl T.; Smith, Michael B. (December 2010). "Hydraulic fracturing.

History of an enduring technology" (PDF). JPT Online (Society of Petroleum Engineers): 26–41. Retrieved 13 May 2012.

26. Energy Institute (February 2012). Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development (PDF) (Report). University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 29 February 2012.

27. A. J. Stark, A. Settari, J. R. Jones, Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing of High Permeability Gas Wells to Reduce Non-darcy Skin Effects, Petroleum Society of Canada, Annual Technical Meeting, Jun 8 - 10, 1998, Calgary, Alberta.[dead link]

28.Mader, Detlef (1989). Hydraulic Proppant Fracturing and Gravel Packing. Elsevier. pp. 173–174; 202. ISBN 9780444873521.

29.Ben E. Law and Charles W. Spencer, 1993, "Gas in tight reservoirs-an emerging major source of energy," in David G. Howell (ed.), The Future of Energy Gasses, US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1570, p.233-252.

30. C.R. Fast, G.B. Holman, and R. J. Covlin, "The application of massive hydraulic fracturing to the tight Muddy 'J' Formation, Wattenberg Field, Colorado," in Harry K. Veal, (ed.), Exploration Frontiers of the Central and Southern Rockies (Denver: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 1977) 293-300.

Citations:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/03/140319-5-technologies-for-greener-fracking/

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001732

http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

http://scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/pros-and-cons-fracking

The Fracking Truth by Chris Faulkner (June 30, 2014, Platform Press)

http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-fracking

Fracking: The pros and cons of the booming and controversial extraction process The Center for Michigan | Bridge Magazine on May 20, 2014 at 2:05 PM, updated May 20, 2014 at 2:09 PM

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Aug. 18, 2011 report "Shale Gas Production Subcommittee 90-Day Report" on shalegas.energy.gov