Fracking offers energy potential

Published July 22, 2013

Editorial, Jacksonville Daily News, July 11, 2013.

President Barack Obama was right when he conceded recently that the boom in U.S. natural gas production is both good for the environment and good for the economy.

Obama made this point when he gave a major environmental speech that focused on climate change and carbon emissions.

But to the surprise of some — including some environmentalist supporters, who were irked — Obama supported the boom in U.S. natural-gas production that is, in part, caused by a relatively new drilling technique called “fracking.”

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has helped stimulate the U.S. energy sector and, thus, the U.S. economy. Obama noted that the natural gas boom is creating jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering utility bills.

The reason for this is simple. Natural gas is used by many power plants to create electricity. Natural gas burns more cleanly than coal, sending fewer greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Such carbon emissions, in theory, lead to global warming and climate change. Regardless of how one feels about the great climate-change debate, it just makes sense to try to find cleaner ways to generate electricity.

The best two ways to do that are to use nuclear energy and natural gas. Nuclear power plants have zero emissions. They should continue to be a source of U.S. power. But nuclear power plants are expensive to build and maintain.

Right now, the market is moving toward natural gas. Natural gas production, thanks to fracking, is up 30 percent since 2005, according to USA Today. Much of this stems from technological innovation.

Fracking involves pushing water and sand, mixed with some other fluids, deep into ground. Pressure is added as the fluid is pushed sideways. This fractures shale, and natural gas rises up through a well.

Many environmentalists hate the practice, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has balked at attacking it. Most recently, the EPA decided not to finalize a 2011 report that fracking had contaminated a Wyoming aquifer.

Studies of fracking continue. USA Today reported that the U.S. Geological Survey found no evidence of wide-scale leaks of methane far from the fracking sites, “beyond naturally occurring amounts.”

Here one should note that no wide-scale production of energy is perfectly safe or free from accident. But there is little evidence to suggest fracking causes serious environmental damage.

Fracking shows that innovation is alive and well in the United States. The process started in the U.S., and scientists enhanced the process to get at natural gas trapped in shale. U.S. shale formations have great untapped sources of natural gas and oil. Getting at them could produce long-term energy independence for the United States. And it could drive down energy costs, at home and at the pump.

It’s fortunate that President Obama understands that fracking and the natural gas boom have clear economic benefits to the nation, with minimal environmental dangers.

 

July 22, 2013 at 6:54 pm
dj anderson says:

Obama is a lawyer, not an engineer, and a political pragmatist when it comes to fixing a lame economy that's plagued his presidency. Sure he supports it and the wealth natural gas resources bring.

I'm not seeing the boom for NC as a whole and I do worry about the ground water and environmental risks. Bev was against it, but went with it. That's the political mood, be leery, but then go along.

August 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Vicky Hutter says:

I agree with DJ Anderson. It is insane to approve fracking for the extraction of natural gas with the limited data in terms of intended and unintended consequences of the practice. Personally I don't want NC to end up like Poland and not be able to drink ground water due to chemical contamination. NC has more earthquake fault lines than California, do we really want to cause problems along the fault lines? My biggest concern however is that the gas companies will not be required to disclose the names of and amounts of the chemicals they inject under pressure hundreds of feet underground. During the 1950s observers were allowed to watch testing of the atomic bomb without any protection other than standing in a dirt trench a few miles from the blast zone---no one (read NO ONE) understood about nuclear fall-out or about the long-term effects of exposure to radiation that would turn up decades later. Much more scientific research needs to be done prior to approval for fracking anywhere in our state. Once the damage is done, it may not be possible to fix. Personally I don't want politicians or bureaucrats deciding issues this important without a lot more confidence in the reassurances currently being given without sufficient data. Any politician or bureaucrat who attempts to ram this down our throats or who authorizes fracking without public input and approval should be impeached, fired or replaced.