Fracking brings Earthquakes, Water Pollution and Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions?- Strike Number Three?
Holy natural gas industry Batman! First of all, the last decade has certainly seen a sustained campaign. A campaign by the hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking”) industry. Fracking is for natural gas exploration. Hence against its critics. Similarly and all part of https://empoweringamerica.org/ as the fracking industry in the U.S. alone.
It was worth an estimated $76 billion in 2010. Furthermore it’s also projected to grow to $231 billion in 2036.
All for the financial impact of natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Yet it’s expected to be having a significant and debilitating impact on tourism.
Especially and most noteworthy, in the Southern part of New York State. This information is also from a study at the regional planning board.
I also learned that they also examined the cumulative impact of drilling for fracking. So specifically I mean they analyzed it environmentally. That’s in both the short and long term.
The study found in the short term a gain. Whereas in the long-run a detriment. So it states the area woukd enjoy some immediate economic benefit. However and more noteworthy, in the long term it will experience a significant economic degradation. That’s especially in an area heavily dependent on tourism.
So this information is according to Washington’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA also reporting that the production of shale gas in the United States in 2010 totaled 4.87 trillion cubic feet (tcf). That’s consequently from or also compared with 0.39 tcf only a decade earlier.
The further combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is transforming North America’s natural gas market. I mean in less than half a decade. So in 2000 shale gas was only 1 percent of America’s gas supplies. Now it’s certainly today at 25 percent. All the while, U.S. energy companies only began fracking for gas in the late 1990s.
Now I also did know there was another dramatic increase in 2005. Especially, after the administration of President George W. Bush. For they exempted fracking consequently from regulations. Consequently from the U.S. Clean Water Act.
This is again according to Washington’s Energy Information Agency. Since then more over shale gas production has grown 48 percent annually.
However, on 8 December the Environmental Protection Agency said for the first time it found chemicals. Chemicals more noteworthy used for fracking were in drinking-water. It was also located most importantly in an aquifer in west-central Wyoming.
Trying to soothe the electorate and as a result, the industry group Energy in Depth reported, “The history of fracturing technology’s safe use in America extends all the way back to the Truman administration. All with more than 1.2 million wells completed via the process since 1947.”
And the feds are backing fracking as well. Because as a new estimate from the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates that the national gas resource can be sustained for 110 years. That’s most importantly at current consumption rates.
So in 2009 an industry-financed study reported above all that 622,000 people are employed. That’s even more directly involved in the discovery, extraction and distribution of U.S. natural gas.
As for “insider” influence, in 2005 former Vice President Dick Cheney, in partnership with the energy industry and drilling companies. Even more and such as his former employer, Halliburton Corp. For they successfully pressured Congress to exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition the Clean Air Act and further other environmental laws.
Even more, a report released the following month by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. It’s a result noted that switching from coal to natural gas is bad. They cite it as an energy source that could result in increased global warming. Claimed mainly due to the methane leakage problem. All which as a result is common. However it is most noteworthy unregulated.
Even more and in a further potential federal sandbagging of the natgas industry, the federal Environmental Protection Agency studied fracking and deemed it safe in 2004. It is taking another, broader look at the practice. So it may end up taking a more active role. All with a broader study expected to be finished next year.
Maalox moments all – but now fracking is being charged with contributing to global warming. All by releasing substantial amounts of methane. Because it’s a greenhouse gas 20-100 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
According to Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He reported that every methane molecule is 70 times more potent then carbon dioxide; especially in terms of trapping heat. Now that’s more potent than a molecule of carbon dioxide.
Also you have Professor Robert Howarth. He is Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology. In addition, he is director of Cornell’s agriculture, energy and environment program.
Robert noted that his research shows the effects of fracking. He added that “one” well-pad fracking shale gas alone is more powerful than expected more importantly. I mean he stated it emits more greenhouse gases than a community of 100,000 people in a year.
Methane more over, already accounts for a sixth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs). So also in addressing earlier concerns about the pollution impact of fracking Dr. Howarth wrote in Boston University’s Comment 14 September article, “Should Fracking Stop?”
Most noteworthy, many fracking additives are toxic. They are also carcinogenic or mutagenic. In addition, many are also kept secret.
In the United States, such secrecy has been abetted by the 2005 ‘Halliburton loophole’. That which exempts fracking from many of the nation’s major federal environmental-protection laws. Even including the Safe Drinking Water Act.
First of all, fracking extracts natural salts. That’s in addition to heavy metals, hydrocarbons and radioactive materials. Because shale is also posing risks to ecosystems. More importantly and also to our public health. That’s especially when these chemicals return back to the surface.
Because shale-gas development is so new. It’s scientific information is also scarce on the environmental costs. Only this year more over have studies begun to also appear. They are appearing as a result in peer-reviewed journals. More noteworthy, these studies give reason for pause.
As ProPublica reports:
This was also the year that “fracking” became a household word.
It wasn’t also just that environmental concerns about the underground drilling process finally struck a mainstream chord. I mean after three years of reporting and more than 125 stories. For the first time, independent scientific investigations linked the drilling technique with water pollution. So finally a variety of federal and state agencies responded to the growing apprehension about water contamination. All more over with more studies and more regulation.
Now this was the most important development. Especially I mean and perhaps a crucial turning point. It was also in December. Consequently and in a landmark finding, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing was the likely culprit in a spate of groundwater contamination.
Also contamination that had forced residents to stop using their water in dozens of homes in central Wyoming. The agency had also been investigating since 2008.
Those studies are also separate from a national research project the EPA has undertaken. One to thereby assess the risks fracking poses to water resources. The agency is also examining five case studies across the country. As well as now estimating that some of its report will be complete by the original 2012 deadline. Yet the rest will continue into 2014.
Even worse was also during the UN climate change conference in Durban last week. Because as well more got leaked. I mean Dominic Frongillo: a town councilor from Caroline, New York. He is the one which stands atop the Marcellus Shale seam. He more over estimating the shale seam is containing 489 trillion cubic feet of extractable natural gas.
So the pushback has started. All more importantly with a number of his Cornell colleagues starting in on the Professor. Again and all by questioning Dr. Howarth’s research methodology.
So see Lawrence M Cathles III, Larry Brown, Milton Taam and Andrew Hunter, “A Commentary on “The Greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea” @ http://cce.cornell.edu/.
What I also learned which became clear that Cornell’s faculty is divided. I mean divided over the consequences of fracking. So wow I can’t even.
Now more over it’s because the industry also has impacted the Universities Board of Trustees. I also mean they oversee the University’s $5.28 billion endowment fund. This is also according to the 16 February 2010 edition of the “Cornell Sun”.
In conclusion, the impact of natural gas hydraulic fracturing at Cornell is real. For it thereby has turned into a mounting academic storm. All with passionate advocates on both sides of the fence. Finally, it is notable that Cathles’, Brown’s, Taam’s and Hunter’s critique is featured prominently on the website natural gas. So I mean America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA); a pro-industry advocacy group.