Brief: Fracking
Background:
In recent
years in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a push to find better alternatives to
oil, one of which is natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than oil. There
is a controversy as to how some of that natural gas is obtained, however. One
process used is known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” which involves
injecting massive amounts of water, chemicals, sand and other material under
high pressure into shale formations to break the rock and release the gas
trapped inside. In 2000, shale beds provided just 1 percent of America’s
natural gas supply. Today, that figure stands at 25 percent. The Energy
Information Administration estimates that shale gas fields in the United States
contain enough natural gas to power the country for 110 years.
With so
much energy to be found by this process, many people propose that we increase
our efforts to extract natural gas, since it gives us a viable option separate
from oil, and it would be produced at home, lessening our dependence on the
stability of other countries for our energy supplies. Critics of fracking say
that it damages the environment, leading to a greater propensity for
earthquakes, and it also leaves lots of harmful chemicals in the ground after
the process is completely finished, which then make their way into the water
supply.
The Fracking Process:
·
Fracking involves drilling down to levels of as much as 10,000 to
15,000 feet, far below the aquifer, which is about 300 feet below the surface.
·
Before any water, chemical, and sand mixture is used to frack the
shale, a steel pipe encased in cement is laid through the well. This system
ensures that the fracking mixture is delivered directly to the shale layers
targeted for fracturing, 10,000 to 15,000 feet below the aquifer.
·
The fracking mixture, as well as the released oil or natural gas,
is then sucked back up through the protected wellbore and stored in surface
reserve tanks. Some is filtered for re-use; some is disposed of at a regulated
disposal center.
·
The fracking mixture is 99.5 percent water, 0.5 percent chemical,
and sand. Here at Breitling Oil & Gas, the chemical mix typically contains
between 15 and 30 different chemicals, with an emphasis on chemicals that are
considered safe for human consumption.
Motion: TH Rejects Fracking
Pro:
1.
Environmental Harms
a.
Fracking disturbs, distributes, and carries
upward with the fracked gas what are called “produced waters” that normally sit
a mile or more beneath the earth’s surface. These “produced waters” contain
radioactive materials, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, bromide, highly concentrated
salts, and many other organic and inorganic compounds that, when exposed to our
environment, are dangerous to biological life. The chemicals added to the
fracking process obviously make this worse, but even if fracking fluids were
non-toxic, fracking in deep formations will always deliver deadly chemical
hazards.
b.
There exists a greater likelihood of earthquakes
from fracking, too. In the region surrounding Youngstown in northeastern Ohio, where
the fracking boom is in full swing, seismic instruments recorded nearly a dozen
small earthquakes in 2011, with a magnitude 4.0 tremor reported on December 31.
According to John Armbruster of Columbia University, who has studied
earthquakes and drilling for years, “any disposal well that’s been pumping
stuff into the ground for months can cause earthquakes.”
2.
Harms to people
a.
In Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA found fracking
chemicals in well water. There is proof that chemicals used in the fracking
process do not disappear or stay in one place. They can easily make their way
into well water, which directly harms people who get their drinking water from
those sources. More fracking would mean more potential disease and death for
those living in areas close to shale gas fields.
i.
New York City gets roughly half its water from
the Delaware River Basin, a key area for hydraulic fracturing
b.
The chemicals left by fracking in abandoned
capped wells, after production ends, will be hazards for millennia to come. We
have no good way of eliminating these chemicals or disposing of them in a safe
manner. A high amount of fracking simply means that more and more chemicals
will be left for future generations to deal with.
c.
The cement and steel casings used and the
plugging methods for post-production gas wells do not isolate methane, other
dangerous gases, and pressure-driven contaminated fluids from the groundwater.
Even if the very best technology is used, these plugged-up wells will be broken
down in 80-100 years, and probably sooner.
d.
Water is a scarce resource. Less than 1 percent
of the earth’s water is potable, and fracking puts even more of our drinking
water sources at risk. This will be a huge problem for future generations.
3.
Increased Regulation would be Helpful
a.
The fracking industry should follow the same
rules as every other industry. Currently, fracking has exemption from the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the industry does not have to publicly disclose the
chemicals used in the fracking process. At the very minimum, these types of
regulations should be implemented to ensure transparency and honesty in the
industry, and to help guarantee that we can make this process as safe as
possible.
b.
Congress passes laws like the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, because the government has a
role in protecting people and keeping them safe from unnecessary harm.
4.
Energy doesn’t always stay in the U.S.
a.
As seen in the last few years, American domestic
oil production has been at record levels, yet gas prices have continued their
steady rise. According to logic, more oil production should mean less cost at
the pump. However, oil companies in the U.S. found that they could get more
profit by selling the oil to Asia, specifically China. There is no reason to
think that the same thing won’t happen with natural gas. China can pay more and
has a higher demand for energy. Even if fracking produces lots and lots of natural
gas, it has to stay in the U.S. to give us a boost in energy independence.
5.
The Fracking Industry is Corrupt
a.
The industry pays state regulators millions of
dollars in permitting fees, resulting in a situation like Pennsylvania. In
Pennsylvania, the state levied fines on only 4 percent of drillers who violated
the law. After one company in PA contaminated drinking water for 16 homes, the
fine was less than what the company earns in three hours. Surprisingly, that
was the largest fine ever imposed.
Con:
1.
Harms and Risks are not as large as they seem
a.
According to the EPA, natural gas electricity
generation produces half the carbon dioxide of coal, less than 1/3 of the
nitrogen oxides and 1 percent of the sulfur oxides. While fracking is not
perfect, natural gas as a resource is a better option than coal when it comes
to environmental impact.
b.
The use of hydraulic fracturing is not new. The
process has been used since 1947 to extract oil and natural gas. The claim that
groundwater is just now being contaminated lacks substantive data to support
its conclusions. The national association of state groundwater agencies have
found no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing
fluids.
c.
The EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently
reinforced the EPA’s stance that fracturing does not pose a significant threat
to groundwater
d.
Claims about the harms to drinking water are
unsubstantiated. In western Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer
Authority did extensive tests and didn’t find a problem in local rivers.
e.
The industry and regulators have responded to
concerns. In the last half of 2011 in Pennsylvania, out of the 10.1 million
barrels of shale wastewater generated, about 97 percent was either recycled,
sent to deep-injection wells, or sent to a treatment plant that doesn’t
discharge into waterways.
2.
Alternative energy needs a backup
a.
We need to utilize all of our resources as we
push toward more alternative energies. We currently get 49 percent of our power
from burning coal, 21 percent from nuclear, and 18 percent from natural gas.
Wind accounts for only 2 percent and solar only 0.03 percent.
b.
The problem with energy sources like wind and
solar is that the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and the sun doesn’t shine all
the time. Texas, for example, has the capacity to produce 10,000 megawatts (MW)
of energy from wind, but it only generates about 2,000 MW. Assuming about 40
percent efficiency for a gas power plant, the gas production from one shale gas
field (the Barnett Shale) is about 25,000 MW, the equivalent of over 60,000
wind turbines or 25 coal-fired power plants.
c.
Natural gas is an energy solution that works
today, while alternative energy sources need time to be developed. We should
use the resources that we have in the present to satisfy our energy needs while
pursuing green technologies at the same time.
3.
Economic gains
a.
In 2008, after the innovation of fracking gave
way to a surge in resources, the price of natural gas plummeted from nearly $8
per thousand cubic feet to $3.67. The increase in domestic production has kept
prices low for American consumers—who get 24 percent of their electricity from
natural gas.
b.
In places like Pennsylvania, development of the
Marcellus Shale (a shale gas field) is projected to create more than 111,000
jobs in 2011 with $10 billion added to the state’s economy.
4.
Technological advances reduce harms
a.
The risks presented by fracking are avoidable.
Just like any other industrial activity, there are risks, but good engineering,
in combination with sensible and effective regulation, reduces those risks to
maximize societal benefit.
b.
Thanks to today’s technology, we can produce
many times the amount of energy we did in the past—but by drilling many fewer
wells. In Pennsylvania in 2010, the number of wells drilled was 30 percent less
than in 2005, yet the state is producing roughly 12 times the volume of natural
gas per day than it did back then.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment