Fracking? (Hydraulic Fracturing)

[PJ]

Do you support a ban on hydraulic fracturing?

I very strongly support a permanent ban on all current and future practices. Hydraulic fracturing will inevitably run out, and assuming that it continues to expand as an industry, all the jobs created will be lost, putting us in even more of a problem. In addition, any of the unemployment reductions aren't worth it if it means contaminating your water.

[Flake]

I have PJ's position.

[Sol]

Same.

[bedstuy]

No.  I think the evidence shows that fracking is currently more environmentally friendly than coal.  Would you also support banning coal mining? 

Fracking and all natural resource development needs to be carefully monitored and regulated.  But, we need natural gas and oil for the foreseeable future.  We need to keep drilling and finding ways to produce energy.

I've heard some environmentalists going absolutely nuts about fracking.  However, as a non-geologist, I don't have any idea what's true on that issue.  But, we have laws to regulate our air and water.  If they work for conventional oil and gas exploration, why won't they work for fracking?

Do you support a ban on hydraulic fracturing?

I very strongly support a permanent ban on all current and future practices. Hydraulic fracturing will inevitably run out, and assuming that it continues to expand as an industry, all the jobs created will be lost, putting us in even more of a problem. In addition, any of the unemployment reductions aren't worth it if it means contaminating your water.

Do you really think that's a persuasive argument?

[ElectionsGuy]

No. It is a useful and effective form of energy that will help us become energy independent and power our future. Plus we can open up so many jobs if we expand our use. But I do think there should be some limits as to how much we should drill, but we should definitely take advantage of our energy as it is now.

[Sol]

No.  I think the evidence shows that fracking is currently more environmentally friendly than coal.  Would you also support banning coal mining? 

Actually, yes.

[PJ]

No.  I think the evidence shows that fracking is currently more environmentally friendly than coal.  Would you also support banning coal mining? 

Fracking and all natural resource development needs to be carefully monitored and regulated.  But, we need natural gas and oil for the foreseeable future.  We need to keep drilling and finding ways to produce energy.

I've heard some environmentalists going absolutely nuts about fracking.  However, as a non-geologist, I don't have any idea what's true on that issue.  But, we have laws to regulate our air and water.  If they work for conventional oil and gas exploration, why won't they work for fracking?

Do you support a ban on hydraulic fracturing?

I very strongly support a permanent ban on all current and future practices. Hydraulic fracturing will inevitably run out, and assuming that it continues to expand as an industry, all the jobs created will be lost, putting us in even more of a problem. In addition, any of the unemployment reductions aren't worth it if it means contaminating your water.

Do you really think that's a persuasive argument?

A well can only be fractured 18 times before it runs out. It's a temporary solution and a pretty pathetic one.

No.  I think the evidence shows that fracking is currently more environmentally friendly than coal.  Would you also support banning coal mining? 

Actually, yes.

[Deus Naturae]

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

[PJ]

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

That's not a reason to ban it. That's a reason not to expand it. A reason to ban it is the fact that it contaminates people's drinking water and air quality.

[TNF]

No, I would not support a ban on the future of energy extraction in the United States and our clearest route to cheap energy and economic growth.

I would however support a ban on private ownership of natural resources like natural gas, coal, oil, etc.

[Deus Naturae]

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

That's not a reason to ban it. That's a reason not to expand it. A reason to ban it is the fact that it contaminates people's drinking water and air quality.

So you would support prohibiting the expansion of mining operations?

As far as water contamination goes - I'm not much of an expert on fracking - but it's my understanding from my very limited knowledge of the subject that the main cause of water contamination as a result of fracking is the use of certain chemicals that, while they do improve the efficiency of the practice, are not necessary for fracking to take place. I'd be fine with regulating or prohibiting those chemicals.

On the problem of air pollution (and I'm assuming you're just referring to carbon emissions in general here) I think that moving towards natural gas as opposed to coal would help to facilitate a reduction in carbon emissions.

[PJ]

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

That's not a reason to ban it. That's a reason not to expand it. A reason to ban it is the fact that it contaminates people's drinking water and air quality.

So you would support prohibiting the expansion of mining operations?

As far as water contamination goes - I'm not much of an expert on fracking - but it's my understanding from my very limited knowledge of the subject that the main cause of water contamination as a result of fracking is the use of certain chemicals that, while they do improve the efficiency of the practice, are not necessary for fracking to take place. I'd be fine with regulating or prohibiting those chemicals.

On the problem of air pollution (and I'm assuming you're just referring to carbon emissions in general here) I think that moving towards natural gas as opposed to coal would help to facilitate a reduction in carbon emissions.

The difference between fracking and other practices is that fracking is much more environmentally detrimental, and there are safe alternatives.

Hydraulic Fracturing creates Volatile Organic Compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone. This is not from mistakes in the process; it is a regular event. It evaporates from the 50% of the fluid that cannot be used from the fracture.

Yet natural gas will also run out, and produces more carbon emissions than renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, etc.

[bedstuy]

No.  I think the evidence shows that fracking is currently more environmentally friendly than coal.  Would you also support banning coal mining? 

Actually, yes.

That's a non-starter from a pure logistics and economics point of view.  Coal is a good portion of our electricity generation.  A total ban on coal mining would be chaos.

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

That's not a reason to ban it. That's a reason not to expand it. A reason to ban it is the fact that it contaminates people's drinking water and air quality.

So you would support prohibiting the expansion of mining operations?

As far as water contamination goes - I'm not much of an expert on fracking - but it's my understanding from my very limited knowledge of the subject that the main cause of water contamination as a result of fracking is the use of certain chemicals that, while they do improve the efficiency of the practice, are not necessary for fracking to take place. I'd be fine with regulating or prohibiting those chemicals.

On the problem of air pollution (and I'm assuming you're just referring to carbon emissions in general here) I think that moving towards natural gas as opposed to coal would help to facilitate a reduction in carbon emissions.

The difference between fracking and other practices is that fracking is much more environmentally detrimental, and there are safe alternatives.

Hydraulic Fracturing creates Volatile Organic Compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone. This is not from mistakes in the process; it is a regular event. It evaporates from the 50% of the fluid that cannot be used from the fracture.

Yet natural gas will also run out, and produces more carbon emissions than renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, etc.

That's why we regulate VOC, O3, SO2, CO2 and NO2.  We have a clean air act which regulates fracking.  Are you saying that we should ban everything in the industrial, mining, agricultural, transportation sectors that produces air pollution? 

With your jobs argument, I have to question that a little more.  Are you saying that we shouldn't engage in any extractive industry, mining or oil/gas? 

[Deus Naturae]

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

That's not a reason to ban it. That's a reason not to expand it. A reason to ban it is the fact that it contaminates people's drinking water and air quality.

So you would support prohibiting the expansion of mining operations?

As far as water contamination goes - I'm not much of an expert on fracking - but it's my understanding from my very limited knowledge of the subject that the main cause of water contamination as a result of fracking is the use of certain chemicals that, while they do improve the efficiency of the practice, are not necessary for fracking to take place. I'd be fine with regulating or prohibiting those chemicals.

On the problem of air pollution (and I'm assuming you're just referring to carbon emissions in general here) I think that moving towards natural gas as opposed to coal would help to facilitate a reduction in carbon emissions.

The difference between fracking and other practices is that fracking is much more environmentally detrimental, and there are safe alternatives.

Hydraulic Fracturing creates Volatile Organic Compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone. This is not from mistakes in the process; it is a regular event. It evaporates from the 50% of the fluid that cannot be used from the fracture.

Yet natural gas will also run out, and produces more carbon emissions than renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, etc.

As I said, I'm rather ignorant of the science here, but it is my understanding that there are methods for which to deal with waste water¹. I'd be fine with requiring companies to implement these methods.

I realize it won't last forever, by I don't think that's a good reason not to take advantage of it while it's available. I think my previous example of mining shows why it's silly not to take advantage of a valuable resource just because it's finite.

And yes, natural gas does produce carbon emissions, but it produces significantly less of them than coal. I think that a gradual approach to reducing emissions is best, given the number of people who are impacted highly by both energy jobs and prices. It's also worth considering what would happen if we were to prohibit the production of all further fossil fuel-based energies. In all likelihood, I think we would just get more of our energy from foreign countries, which would distort our foreign policy even further and nullify many of the environmental benefits, not to mention the devastating impact it would have on our economy.

1. Skip all the way to the section on Fluid Management near the bottom for the relevant information

[Platypus]

If it's on land with an independent water table, no issue with it, if the land is owned by the company sourcing the gas.

[PJ]

No.  I think the evidence shows that fracking is currently more environmentally friendly than coal.  Would you also support banning coal mining? 

Actually, yes.

That's a non-starter from a pure logistics and economics point of view.  Coal is a good portion of our electricity generation.  A total ban on coal mining would be chaos.

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

That's not a reason to ban it. That's a reason not to expand it. A reason to ban it is the fact that it contaminates people's drinking water and air quality.

So you would support prohibiting the expansion of mining operations?

As far as water contamination goes - I'm not much of an expert on fracking - but it's my understanding from my very limited knowledge of the subject that the main cause of water contamination as a result of fracking is the use of certain chemicals that, while they do improve the efficiency of the practice, are not necessary for fracking to take place. I'd be fine with regulating or prohibiting those chemicals.

On the problem of air pollution (and I'm assuming you're just referring to carbon emissions in general here) I think that moving towards natural gas as opposed to coal would help to facilitate a reduction in carbon emissions.

The difference between fracking and other practices is that fracking is much more environmentally detrimental, and there are safe alternatives.

Hydraulic Fracturing creates Volatile Organic Compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone. This is not from mistakes in the process; it is a regular event. It evaporates from the 50% of the fluid that cannot be used from the fracture.

Yet natural gas will also run out, and produces more carbon emissions than renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, etc.

That's why we regulate VOC, O3, SO2, CO2 and NO2.  We have a clean air act which regulates fracking.  Are you saying that we should ban everything in the industrial, mining, agricultural, transportation sectors that produces air pollution? 

With your jobs argument, I have to question that a little more.  Are you saying that we shouldn't engage in any extractive industry, mining or oil/gas? 

The problems with hydraulic fracturing don't look large by themselves, but when all is added together, it's a horribly inefficient and harmful industry:

1. Requires 400 tanker trucks per each fracture.
2. Requires 1-8 million gallons of water per fracture.
3. 40,000 gallons are used per fracture.
4. Up to 600 chemicals, including toxins and carcinogens such as lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde are used in fracturing.
5. A well can only be fracked 18 times.
6. 72 trillion gallons of water are needed to run current fracturing facilities.
7. 360 billion gallons of chemicals are needed to run current fracturing facilities.
8. During this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and contaminate nearby groundwater.
9. On average, methane concentrations are 17 times higher in drinking water wells near fracturing sites than wells that are not near them.
10. The previously mentioned 1,000 cases of water contamination include sensory, respiratory, and neurological damages.
11. Only 30-50% of the fluid produced from the fracture is even recovered, making it very inefficient.
12. The rest is left to evaporate, where it sends volatile organic compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone into the atmosphere.

So because the industry won't last forever it should be banned? Precious metals and minerals will eventually run out, does that mean that mining them should be banned?

That's not a reason to ban it. That's a reason not to expand it. A reason to ban it is the fact that it contaminates people's drinking water and air quality.

So you would support prohibiting the expansion of mining operations?

As far as water contamination goes - I'm not much of an expert on fracking - but it's my understanding from my very limited knowledge of the subject that the main cause of water contamination as a result of fracking is the use of certain chemicals that, while they do improve the efficiency of the practice, are not necessary for fracking to take place. I'd be fine with regulating or prohibiting those chemicals.

On the problem of air pollution (and I'm assuming you're just referring to carbon emissions in general here) I think that moving towards natural gas as opposed to coal would help to facilitate a reduction in carbon emissions.

The difference between fracking and other practices is that fracking is much more environmentally detrimental, and there are safe alternatives.

Hydraulic Fracturing creates Volatile Organic Compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone. This is not from mistakes in the process; it is a regular event. It evaporates from the 50% of the fluid that cannot be used from the fracture.

Yet natural gas will also run out, and produces more carbon emissions than renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, etc.

As I said, I'm rather ignorant of the science here, but it is my understanding that there are methods for which to deal with waste water¹. I'd be fine with requiring companies to implement these methods.

I realize it won't last forever, by I don't think that's a good reason not to take advantage of it while it's available. I think my previous example of mining shows why it's silly not to take advantage of a valuable resource just because it's finite.

And yes, natural gas does produce carbon emissions, but it produces significantly less of them than coal. I think that a gradual approach to reducing emissions is best, given the number of people who are impacted highly by both energy jobs and prices. It's also worth considering what would happen if we were to prohibit the production of all further fossil fuel-based energies. In all likelihood, I think we would just get more of our energy from foreign countries, which would distort our foreign policy even further and nullify many of the environmental benefits, not to mention the devastating impact it would have on our economy.

1. Skip all the way to the section on Fluid Management near the bottom for the relevant information

But why invest in such a harmful process when it's only temporary? Especially when there are much more renewable resources out there.

[ElectionsGuy]

What is it with you two and debating? lol

[muon2]

The problems with hydraulic fracturing don't look large by themselves, but when all is added together, it's a horribly inefficient and harmful industry:

1. Requires 400 tanker trucks per each fracture.
2. Requires 1-8 million gallons of water per fracture.
3. 40,000 gallons are used per fracture.
4. Up to 600 chemicals, including toxins and carcinogens such as lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde are used in fracturing.
5. A well can only be fracked 18 times.
6. 72 trillion gallons of water are needed to run current fracturing facilities.
7. 360 billion gallons of chemicals are needed to run current fracturing facilities.
8. During this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and contaminate nearby groundwater.
9. On average, methane concentrations are 17 times higher in drinking water wells near fracturing sites than wells that are not near them.
10. The previously mentioned 1,000 cases of water contamination include sensory, respiratory, and neurological damages.
11. Only 30-50% of the fluid produced from the fracture is even recovered, making it very inefficient.
12. The rest is left to evaporate, where it sends volatile organic compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone into the atmosphere.

This reads like a mix of older facts, and primarily from states that are largely unregulated for fracking. I have done a bit of study in this area and here are some points to consider.

Water Use: The volume of water used in fracking (250 billion gallons in 2012) is still much less than that used in the production of coal (1000-3000 billion gallons annually).  However, it's still a large number, but new technologies like water recycling can dramatically reduce the volume. In some areas nitrogen gas is now being used instead of water for fracking and then water usage drops even more.

Wastewater: This can be a huge problem when it is unregulated and sits in open ponds near wells. Better state regulations require enclosed above-ground tanks for the waste water, which also decreases the volatile emissions of chemicals from the wastewater. Trucks are used when disposal is required far from the well, but in many areas wastewater is disposed by deep injection wells used in other industries including carbon sequestration.

Groundwater Contamination: This occurs both from the aforementioned storage ponds and by well leaks both from old unsealed wells and casing leaks in new wells. Much of this can be addressed through a strict permit process that identifies existing wells and seals them and requires best practice well casings. Both of these are also in industry's long term interest as they lead to less loss of extracted hydrocarbons. The permit process also needs to require substantial setbacks from drinking water supplies and groundwater monitoring around the well site.

Chemicals: The biggest problem occurs when there is no disclosure of the fracking chemicals which invites the use of highly suspect compounds. Not all of those chemicals are necessary for fracking but some companies use them for cost or convenience. States with disclosure requirements find that the industry will avoid the toxic additives and typically use a mix of compounds one could find in household cleaning supplies and cosmetics. The amount of those chemicals used in fracking water is about the same as dipping your thumb in some makeup and swirling it in a cup of water. That's why Gov Hickenlooper disclosed that he drank fracking water during Senate testimony early this year.

State regulations are not uniform, but IL has implemented all of the items I've mentioned.

[TNF]

The movement to ban fracking is literally as thick-headed as the movement to ban nuclear power plants.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm not an expert on fracking, but I've heard mostly bad things about it. I think in the very least, there needs to be extensive regulation about where it's done and how, environmental assessments, etc.  I don't think that's being done right now, at least not to the degree where people's health isn't affected.

Generally relying on non-renewable energy sources is a bad idea anyways. It's ok for the short term, as long as it's share of the energy source pie is ever decreasing.

[Peter the Lefty]

Yes.  The environmental hazards are far too great for it to be "regulated." 

[traininthedistance]

The movement to ban fracking is literally as thick-headed as the movement to ban nuclear power plants.

Yeah!  Who cares if millions of people lose safe drinking water!  Who cares if cities are on the hook for billions of dollars in treatment plants through no fault of their own!  Caring about that is "thick-headed"!  Give me a f[inks]ing break.

I don't know that I could support a complete, permanent ban, because it is better than coal even when you take all the hidden costs into account (because the hidden costs of coal are just that disgusting), but I definitely support moratoriums, and local bans in areas where the water supply is sensitive and/or helps hydrate large numbers of people, e.g. the Catskills.

[bedstuy]

The movement to ban fracking is literally as thick-headed as the movement to ban nuclear power plants.

Yeah!  Who cares if millions of people lose safe drinking water!  Who cares if cities are on the hook for billions of dollars in treatment plants through no fault of their own!  Caring about that is "thick-headed"!  Give me a f[inks]ing break.

I don't know that I could support a complete, permanent ban, because it is better than coal even when you take all the hidden costs into account (because the hidden costs of coal are just that disgusting), but I definitely support moratoriums, and local bans in areas where the water supply is sensitive and/or helps hydrate large numbers of people, e.g. the Catskills.

On the whole question of water tables and aquifers, I don't know how to make up my mind on this.  I don't understand the science and the only people with an opinion on the science seem to be breathless environmental crusaders or the fracking industry itself. 

I think the solution is that we repeal the Bush era exemption for fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Maybe we ought to require an EPA permit to frack within certain areas of the country, akin to an NPDES permit that you need for discharging wastewater above ground.

[muon2]

The movement to ban fracking is literally as thick-headed as the movement to ban nuclear power plants.

Yeah!  Who cares if millions of people lose safe drinking water!  Who cares if cities are on the hook for billions of dollars in treatment plants through no fault of their own!  Caring about that is "thick-headed"!  Give me a f[inks]ing break.

I don't know that I could support a complete, permanent ban, because it is better than coal even when you take all the hidden costs into account (because the hidden costs of coal are just that disgusting), but I definitely support moratoriums, and local bans in areas where the water supply is sensitive and/or helps hydrate large numbers of people, e.g. the Catskills.

On the whole question of water tables and aquifers, I don't know how to make up my mind on this.  I don't understand the science and the only people with an opinion on the science seem to be breathless environmental crusaders or the fracking industry itself. 

I think the solution is that we repeal the Bush era exemption for fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Maybe we ought to require an EPA permit to frack within certain areas of the country, akin to an NPDES permit that you need for discharging wastewater above ground.

The geologic formations of interest to fracking are hard shale and impervious to water, that's why the pressured fluid is needed to crack the rock release the hydrocarbons. Aquifers are in porous strata that can hold water, so they are by necessity distinct from the carbon shales. Contamination of the aquifer doesn't happen directly from the shale, but happens either from groundwater contamination that percolates into an aquifer or from contamination when a well that goes through an aquifer leaks. That's why I noted that two of the most important regulations involve containing surface fluids and securing well casings through aquifers. Your idea for NPDES permits for fracking wastewater is one that could push the type of regulation that I suggest.

[Dr. Cynic]

They do a lot of that stuff around here and ever since then, I've gotta say, I stopped drinking the water when it began to have an odd coloration to it.