In my last piece I offered a lot of background on fracking. Positive and negative consequences, as well as some thoughts on how and where it should be implemented. Today we’re going to look at the fracking industry as a whole and its effect on both our current state and the future. There has been much consequence outside of just the communities where fracking has taken place, and we’ll see how lives have been altered as a result of this industry boom. I also want to give some thoughts on justifying support and opposition to the industry.
We’ll begin with some economic impact. I’d like to start in the state of North Dakota. Although they are one of the most greatly impacted states, others have their story. North Dakota’s fracking boom is centered around the 200,000 square mile Bakken formation and brings some staggering facts for such a seemingly uninteresting state. “North Dakota’s crude oil production has grown at an average rate of about 37 percent over recent years.” (Yale) This highly linear growth has a direct hand in the US’s reduction in oil imports by over 30% in the past 10 years. In addition, North Dakota boasts the second lowest unemployment rate in the state at a mere 2.9%.
There is an interesting fact behind this that holds me from being in full support of this, because the environmental and community impact in a place like North Dakota is much lower than in a suburban and rich natural areas, although it still does exist. That fact is that the drilling being done in North Dakota is for oil, as opposed to natural gas. The majority of projects have been for Marcellus shale and natural gas, but North Dakota has used fracking techniques to reach into deep and huge oil reserves.
I reserve support for this because I feel that mining for natural gas can be the only valid reason to frack, considering the environmental impact it can bring. Natural gas is a much cleaner fossil fuel than coal or oil, and is seen by many as the bridge we need to get to a world dependent upon clean energy, such as solar and wind. It should be natural gas that brings us away from petroleum oils that do so much harm to our environment. A National Geographic piece really caught my attention and offered a new perspective for me to view this issue with. “Natural gas is not a permanent solution to ending our addiction to imported oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels. Natural gas is the critical puzzle piece RIGHT NOW. It will help us to keep more of the $350 to $450 billion we spend on imported oil every year at home, where it can power our economy and pay for our investments in a smart grid, wind and solar energy, and increased energy efficiency. By investing in alternative energies while utilizing natural gas for transportation and energy generation, America can decrease its dependence on OPEC oil, develop the cutting-edge know-how to make wind and solar technology viable, and keep more money at home to pay for the whole thing.” —Pickens Plan, a site outlining BP Capital founder T. Boone Pickens’ proposed energy strategy” (National Geographic)
This outline of a plan offers a really positive and sensible outlook for the use of the fracking industry on our way to a cleaner future. What worries me is whether or not it is too idealistic. WIll the money we save on imported oil really go into the development of clean energy? If this doesn’t occur then the sacrifices made to habitats and environments will all be for nothing and we will be in a much worse place. If there were someone in charge of the energy department whose goals were congruent with this, I would feel more comfortable. In reality, fracking poses serious risks to areas, such as lowering water and air quality of even polluting water sources. These consequences are far too risky if the industry is just sustaining our reliance on fossil fuels. They are hard enough to defend and I really only can try to in certain areas of the country. There is only justification if we are using it as a springboard into clean energy.
Fracking remains a controversial issue and has pros and cons that will often split on party lines. I think it’s important to look at this in a nonpartisan way in order to best evaluate it. I would love to hear your thoughts and definitely feel free to offer differing stances or opinions 🙂
Sources:
https://envirocenter.yale.edu/news/look-complexity-fracking-north-dakota
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/big-energy-question/how-has-fracking-changed-our-future/
Natural gas truly is a natural (pardon the pun) stepping point in the transition from petroleum to renewable energy sources, and I share your belief that fracking is generally acceptable for natural gas only. I latched onto one sentence you had specifically, where you talked about how natural gas will help fund investments into a smart energy grid. While I think money saved from decreasing imports from petroleum could definitely be used to invest into the electricity grid, I think that money would be better spent investing in renewable energy, because the grid can hold up well on its own. Natural gas is just a stepping point on the way to a fully renewable grid, and the grid is already well prepared to accept that. According to Yale, simple measures would enable the existing energy grid to accept up to 80% renewable energy sources. Therefore, instead of investing money entirely in improving the grid, investing primarily in adopting renewables would be a more efficacious use of the saved budget. While it is true that the grid relies on a constant flow of energy to remain stable, energy storage solutions are capable of filling any gaps created by intermittent renewable energies. Additionally, as long as solar power and wind power are maintained in a balance with each other, intermittence should not be an issue, because wind, while not as consistent as gas and coal, is substantially more reliable than solar in terms of production. Furthermore, Yale also argues that the current grid was build to withstand fluctuations from fossil fuel sources. Coal and oil power plants are offline an average of 6-10% of the time due to supply shortages of weather or mechanical failures. While this isn’t as inconsistent as solar and wind, it still exists, so the grid was built to withstand these perturbations.
The national electricity grid is absolutely trending to renewable, and natural gas obtained by fracking will allow this transition to accelerate and enable our capable system to reach its full potential sooner. While fracking has definite environmental drawbacks, using it for the purpose of obtaining natural gas should help in the long term.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/forget-the-naysayers-the-grid-is-increasingly-ready-for-renewable-energy
I 100% agree with you. I think it’s super important to look at any kind of stepping-stone fuel (like natural gas) as, well, simply a step in a longer-term solution. The possibility of a renewable grid is extremely exciting for our total energy usage and our impact on the environment. My only concern is that some will see fracking as a solution which is long-term enough for the rest of their lifetime, so they will neglect the fact that we will eventually need an even better solution. This, however, is hard to avoid and is an issue which seems to permeate almost every discussion about climate issues.
I think the economic benefits of fracking that you mention are important, although I have my reservations regarding support for it as well. Most importantly, I think the motivation for fracking is almost always for economic gain for a company. This means that while it can have overall economic benefits, the environmental impacts are often overlooked.
In particular, there are a number of impacts which I think are important an often unaddressed. As discussed in Yale Climate Connections (https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/06/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-research-updates/), fracking can (in some circumstances impact the quality of drinking water in local communities. This doesn’t have to occur if the fracking is done careful, but again, the motivation is almost always economic and not community oriented. There are also more environmental impacts: fracking is known to be linked to increased earthquakes and tremors in surrounding areas. Of course, the most significant issue is the release of greenhouse gases from the Earth, particularly methane. While it is good to hear how much better natural gas is than oil, this fact means that natural gas has a lot to make up for if it’s going to be obtained via fracking.
I also have some thoughts about the idea of “bridge fuels.” I think that transitionary technologies and resources are important for the fight against climate change, especially because of how hard more radical changes would be to implement in the current administration. However, the most important thing when relying on transition fuels is to have a long-term solution as well. If we want to rely on fracking as a short-term solution, we also need a plan to transition out of fracking into renewable energy solutions.
I find it very hard to look at fracking in a nonpartisan way because of how clear the divide is for support of fracking across parties. With that said, I appreciate your approach to this issue of fairly analyzing the pros and the cons of certain facets of the topic. Thank you for the post!