Note: Photos used with permission by DRH (oil company my husband operates for). CAT equipment is being operated over the Eagle Ford Shale.
Within the last decade the Eagle Ford Shale (EFS) in south Texas has become every oil field workers' dream. Occupying the Western Gulf Basin, the EFS is one of the most actively sought locations for drilling oil and gas in the U.S.
The gas and oil are obtained by
a process called fracking. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a
process by which massive amounts of water, sand, and chemicals are
injected deep into the ground. Upon injecting this highly pressurized
mixture, the underground shale is broken apart and natural oil and
gas are forced to the surface.
Many recent controversies swirl over
whether the process of fracking is environmentally safe. Bulgaria and
France have recently banned fracking and our own states of New Jersey
and New York are under a temporary ban until further regulations are
put in place.
The good:
The economic opportunity and
growth of shales like Eagle Ford is unparalleled. Soaring tax
revenues and wages, as well as sinking unemployment rates are
evidence of how this shale has transformed the rural counties of
South Texas.
“It makes things a whole lot
easier when it comes to budget time next year, I guarantee you,”
said David Bird, the Gonzales County Judge.
EFS has been projected to
produce more than 67,000 full time jobs by 2020. Due to the influx in
oil field work, even restaurants and hotels are seeing a massive
boost in business. Given a time when our country is faced with
financial uncertainty, job figures like this are a diamond in the
rough.
The bad and the ugly:
Something is out of sorts when
citizens from the oil-booming town of Pavillion, Wyoming can light their own drinking water on
fire. No, they are not partaking in a college past time of doing
“fire" shots. Rather, they may possibly have groundwater polluted
with the likes of methane gas. Is fracking to blame? If so, Texas residents may be next in line to watch their water light up like Roman candles on the Fourth of July.
The majority of
geologists are convinced that the process of fracking is not a
contributing factor to groundwater pollution. They argue that ground
water is just below the earth's surface and the material obtained
from fracking occurs in the much deeper layers. Apparently, the large
gap in between layers acts as a buffer, preventing any contamination
from reaching the precious groundwater.
Due to limited scientific evidence, this theory has yet to be disproved. In other words, the organizations that potentially have the power to link fracking to water contamination (EPA) have been pressured by the oil industries and the government to take a vow in silence in interest of preserving the fiscal scheme of things.
Due to limited scientific evidence, this theory has yet to be disproved. In other words, the organizations that potentially have the power to link fracking to water contamination (EPA) have been pressured by the oil industries and the government to take a vow in silence in interest of preserving the fiscal scheme of things.
For example, in 2004 the EPA
published a study examining how the technique of drilling affected
water supplies. While the study included complaints from a handful of
people, the EPA never tested their water or investigated their cases.
Instead, the agency trusted answers it received from state
regulators. The study's final version was reviewed by a board that
included former employees such of Halliburton, BP, and other oil and
gas companies. Given who approved the reports, it is no small wonder
that the EPA has yet to find a link.
Overall:
Despite the economic benefits
brought on by fracking, it is not worth the risk to our environment.
Yes, the communities of South Texas are becoming financially robust, but
at the expense of polluting the water and destroying the soil.
Financial independence might be nice for the next 15-20 years ( the
amount of time the shale is expected to produce work) but what about
50 or 100 years from now? All of the money in the world can't repair
certain aspects of the environment.
Texans need to be thinking
long term about how fracking and drilling, in general, affect the
overall health of their state. Gone should be the times when we
depend upon nonrenewable resources. Bring on the solar and wind
energy. Take a trip to West Texas, as they have the right idea.
In her blog, Lone Star State of Mind, Mrs. Matthews recently published a commentary on natural gas drilling entitled "Burning Hydrocarbons--What the Frack?!." You don't have to look far down my own blog to see that I have some fairly well-developed opinions on this subject. While I find Mrs. Matthews' post to be well-written and well-informed, I would be most interested to hear any ideas she has about "[b]ring[ing] on the solar and wind energy."
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite parts of Mrs. Matthews' article is her discussion of the questionable quality of many of the "scientific" studies cited by the energy industry in defense of its practices. This is a time-honored ploy of the energy industry that I first read about as a teenager in Oklahoma when the oil companies were trying to explain why you could run your lawn mower on tap water in Ponca City. Governments at all levels in the United States derive massive amounts of revenue from the energy industry. Given this, it is not so difficult to imagine why elected officials hem and haw at the prospect of ratcheting down on producers by introducing stern regulations. Kansas is poised to be the next boom area that will have to weigh the benefits of natural gas drilling against its potential costs (http://cjonline.com/news/2012-04-08/technology-puts-kan-cusp-oil-boom).
It is difficult to argue with the positive short- and medium-term economic impacts of the natural gas boom made possible by fracking; however, it is becoming increasingly apparent that, shockingly, these dollars don't come without environmental costs. Clean energy, specifically solar and wind power, comes with a much smaller environmental footprint, but doesn't become profitable in nearly the time a natural gas well does. In order to shift the nation's energy production in the direction of renewable resources, new fiscal incentives and subsequent technological breakthroughs must come to light.
In her commentary on drilling for oil and gas, Avery takes the position that Texans should not enter into the practice of fracking. Fracking is a process used to obtain oil from deep in the earth. It is done by injecting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand and other chemicals down into the ground in order to release the oil and natural gas. Avery cites damage to the wellbeing of the environment as her reasoning against fracking. Before reading this post, I was unaware of the process so I had no firmly held beliefs on the issue. However, afterwards, I came to agree with Avery’s attitude.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that her argument isn’t biased in order to persuade readers. By addressing both the positive and negative outcomes of fracking, readers can get facts and then make their own informed decisions rather than taking a position and only listening to facts that reinforce it. This is an issue that requires careful consideration because benefits would be almost immediate while consequences would be delayed. It calls for people to weigh present economic security with environmental damage in the future.
I think the combination of poor economic times, high unemployment rates and the availability of a quick and easy solution are likely to persuade people to support fracking – especially citizens in the oil business. This would create thousands of jobs and bring business to surrounding companies. The consequences addressed include the possibility of polluted drinking water taken from the ground as well as general damage that this process inflicts. While the pollution of ground water has yet to be officially proven or disproven, the fact is that with fracking, it’s possible, and without fracking, it’s not.
As Avery recognized, the benefits from this process would be large, but only temporarily so. This process would likely only survive for 15 to 20 years. It’s true that for the time being, many people would gain jobs but when the area no longer produced work, those people would be back in a job finding situation, along with many others in the growing population.
I acknowledge that it is not an easy situation to face, but people tend to look at immediate matters with less regard for long-term effects. Cases such as these (economic vs. environmental) are especially difficult. Financial matters directly affect people. They are more personal. People know immediately when they do not have enough money for their needs. Changes can also be sudden. People who lose their jobs feel the change right away and lifestyle changes usually take place quickly. The environment on the other hand has changed slowly over time. We don’t face devastating changes on a day-to-day basis. Maybe not even year-to-year. Negative changes in the environment steadily accumulate and rarely cause immediate negative affects, so people are less likely to pay close attention. There is also the problem of dispersed responsibility. People may not feel bad about leaving the water running an extra five minutes, not recycling, or not using renewable energy sources because they feel a single person doesn’t make that big of a difference. And this is true. One person is not likely to have a big impact but many people sharing this view do.
For all these reasons, I understand why this fracking opportunity would be appealing; however, as Avery said perfectly, “All of the money in the world can't repair certain aspects of the environment.” It's past the time that we start thinking about taking care of the Earth. It's time to start being proactive and making the right choices for the future.