Last week, Kevin Francfort '15 argued that although it is "important to remember" the environmental concerns posed by hydraulic fracturing, a controversial mining practice used to extract natural gas, our nation should support the technique even if that support comes at the cost of pursuing renewable and clean energy technologies ("In Favor of Fracking," Nov. 10). While the idea of fracking is indeed tempting it offers low costs, job creation, energy independence further investigation reveals this latest fossil fuel craze as just another empty promise, a quick profit-maker that distracts from our need of a clean, sustainable energy policy.
Francfort is indeed right when he acknowledges water contamination as a potential environmental concern related to fracking. A quick search of The Economist, Scientific American, the BBC and other news outlets reveals that some of the 750 different chemicals in fracking products have been leaking into vital water supplies, including drinking water, with devastating effects. For example, residents of Wyoming living near a large drill site were recently warned not to drink the water and to ventilate their houses after showering a good tip considering the multiple carcinogens found at levels up to 50 times those considered safe for humans. Similarly, a peer-reviewed study out of Duke University recently found methane levels in Pennsylvanian fracking wells high enough to be considered "a potential explosion hazard" and significant health risk.
And then there are the earthquakes. The United States Geological Survey recently released a report that found a strong correlation between unprecedented earthquakes in Oklahoma and concurrent fracking operations in the state. While many might write off the survey as inconclusive or a thinly veiled scientist-liberal-elitist-atheist scam, even the frackers themselves have admitted the link: Less than two weeks ago, the Britain-based energy firm Cuadrilla admitted it was "highly probable" that their fracking activities triggered minor earthquakes near Lancashire, England.
Okay, so maybe fracking has lots of potential dangers. But, as Francfort notes, pending the results of the Environmental Protection Agency's new study due in 2014, we can be more certain of any potential dangers and "implement the practice accordingly." Whether this implementation means more government regulation or individual firms pursuing good business practices on their own is unclear. Plus, Francfort argues, the benefits of natural gas which, when burned, emits carbon at half the rate of coal and a third of that of oil should nevertheless justify fracking, even at the expense of spending on new sustainable technologies.
First, I do not think we should put too much faith in the government to effectively regulate fracking. As the nonpartisan citizen advocacy group Common Cause recently reported, the natural gas industry has spent $747 million over the past 10 years to prevent regulation of fracking the 2005 Energy Policy Act, for example, came to include the "Halliburton Loophole," which "explicitly exempted fracking from the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act."
Second, while it is true that natural gas burns more efficiently, a recent Cornell University study noted that the burning of fuel is only part of the process. "Between 3.6 percent and 7.9 percent of the methane in natural gas is lost," the study found, "from the time a well is plumbed to when the gas is used." That, combined with an interaction between methane and aerosol particles that enhances methane's already significant greenhouse gas effects, and the environmental effects from the transportation of fracking fluids and drills, likely results in a greenhouse gas footprint that is between 20 and 50 percent larger than coal.
Ultimately, Francfort's claim that fracking practices "will spur our economy out of recession and lead the United States to energy independence" is overstated at best and dangerous at worst. It is overstated in that while the costs of natural gas prices have fallen and fracking does provide jobs, the resulting environmental damage and associated costs are vast. More importantly, his claims are dangerous in that he asserts that this technology, with all of its real and potential consequences, is worth pursuing over clean, sustainable energy. While we (and many corporations) might reap a short-term profit, without aggressively funding research in the green sector we will only be more fracked in the long run.
