November 6, 2012

By Hayden Lewis

With the changing of the times, the dwindling of our planet’s natural resources and the abhorrent display of human improvidence during the last half-century in our quest for cheap energy comes a funky new term in our cultural lexicon: fracking.

Shorthand for hydraulic fracturing, fracking is the newly popularized, albeit controversial, method of extracting natural gas from beneath Earth’s crust.

[The process](http://www.ces-energy.com/files/www/Blog_2_Picture1.png), for all simplicity’s sake, can be understood twofold: First, a hole is drilled miles into the ground. Then millions of gallons of highly pressurized, chemically treated water is shot down through the hole to fracture underlying rock and free immense pockets of natural gas. From there, the gas travels through the borehole, where it is collected and used as a cheap fuel, [accounting for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. energy](http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/SecInfo/NGasS.pdf).

But wait, why the sudden hoopla over natural gas anyway? First off, it’s considered the “cleanest” fossil fuel, [releasing half as much carbon dioxide upon combustion as coal or oil](http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html), and as it turns out, the U.S. is sitting on a lot of it.

The numbers vary depending on whom you ask (especially if you ask the natural gas industry, infamous among energy-analyst circles for grossly overestimating our reserves), but rational estimates tend to hover around the figure that we have enough frackable natural gas to last [between 11 and 21 years](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html), based on current consumption rates.

Additionally, an abundance of cheap natural gas would lower energy prices for Americans, [stimulate local economies](http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120223/OPINION03/702239982/0/OPINION02) and provide a more environmentally friendly fossil fuel (oxymoronic as that sounds) to ease our nation’s transition to more renewable energy sources.

But don’t jump on the frackwagon just yet — there are still some major safety issues with our current fracking practices. Remember those millions of gallons of highly pressurized, chemically treated water I mentioned earlier, which play such a vital role in the entire fracking process? Well, the harsh chemicals are added to help dissolve sediment and make the whole process a lot easier, but they have a knack of [contaminating local residents’ water supplies](http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/hydraulic_fracturing_fracking), rendering the water poisonous, potentially lethal and — in some cases — even flammable.

Anyone familiar with the 2010 Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland” knows what I’m talking about. Although the natural gas industry tends to brush off accusations of water contamination, citing a lack of sufficient evidence, a striking number of anecdotal cases and some [recently published scientific studies](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-09/pennsylvania-fracking-can-put-water-sources-at-risk-study-finds) tell otherwise.

The main reason why the natural gas industry can slither away from such evident breaches of public safety is because of a particularly heinous [legislative loophole](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3.html?_r=0) in which fracking is exempt from regulation under the Safe Water Drinking Act. Congress passed the measure in 2005 under the reprobate urging of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of major gas driller Halliburton. And the revolving door spins on.

Another key environmental concern in the face of fracking comes with regard to a major by-product that is improperly stored, namely toxic fluid. The fact it’s a by-product is not so much a concern because that can be expected from the use of so many different chemicals. However ,the way it’s stored — in open pits that can overflow or leach into the soil — certainly is.

Lastly, while natural gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as other fossil fuels upon combustion, it isn’t so benign when it’s leaked straight into the atmosphere, releasing a [striking amount of methane](http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html), the most dangerous greenhouse gas.

If fracking development is to be expanded — and it almost certainly will be, considering the statistics at hand and the general puissance of the fossil fuel industry — then safety flaws such as these must be addressed.

Currently, there are [bills in both houses of Congress](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1215) that would close the SWDA loophole, and the Environmental Protection Agency is conducting comprehensive field research in order to more thoroughly establish safety regulations.

This is exactly the direction in which we should be heading with franking. As development increases, so should oversight.

Of course, at the end of the day, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and is certainly no cure-all. However, its capacity to provide a cleaner bridge fuel while our nation invests in more renewable sources is something that must not be overlooked.