Weebly



Fracking CaliforniaMatt ChabotUC Riverside Fracking CaliforniaIn November 2014, California polls in two of three counties chose to ban hydraulic fracturing in the Golden State. This was a huge victory for advocates of clean energy. Fracking is the act of injecting fluids (mostly water, sand, and chemicals) called proppants, at high pressure into an oil or gas reservoir causing the rock to crack underneath the surface. Since the pore space in the rock is often so small, oil can’t flow freely. Therefore, fracturing the rock is necessary in order for the oil to be able to flow out to the well through the channels the fractures create. Hydraulic fracturing is an efficient way to retrieve oil from the ground. But is the risk worth the reward?In 2011, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management leased approximately 2,500 acres for oil and gas development in the Monterey Formation located in central and southern California, and with this act, the debate in California began. In the United States, shale gas production has grown from 0.2 trillion cubic feet in 1998 to 4.9 trillion cubic feet in 2010, and is now producing roughly 30 percent of the nationwide total of gas. So why are many Californians so upset? There are many positive outcomes to fracking. Fracking has become very common. It can provide many benefits to California and the country as a whole. California owns 64 percent of the total U.S. shale-oil reserves in the United States, containing an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil, or 630 billion gallons of oil (Philbin, 2013). With the average barrel of oil currently priced at around 75 dollars a barrel, it is worth a great deal of money. Governor Jerry Brown said that increasing California’s oil production through hydraulic fracking would provide California a “fabulous economic opportunity” (Sovacool, 2014). Not only could these reserves put money in state government coffers, as well of course in the oil companies’ pockets, but it will also make gasoline much more affordable for regular citizens. Production of shale gas wells is roughly 50-60 percent cheaper than production from conventional gas wells. Because of the large amount of production of shale gas, natural gas prices dropped roughly 77 percent translating to New York paying their least amount for electricity since 1999 (Sovacool, 2014).Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas is not only more cost friendly, but also may be cleaner for the environment than other fossil fuels such as coal. One study in Nature Magazine reported: “Global warming is a serious issue that fracking-related gas production can help to alleviate. In a world in which productivity is closely linked to energy expenditure,?fracking will be vital to global economic stability until renewable or nuclear energy carry more of the workload … Replacing coal with natural gas in power plants,?for example,?reduces the plants’ greenhouse emissions by up to 50%” (Sovacool, 2014). Fracking emits lower sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and mercury than coal, translating to lower overall air pollution in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, natural gas may be 25 percent cleaner than coal and oil (EPA, 2013).Hydraulic fracking creates significant economic benefits. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Texas have stabilized their respective economics while producing massive amounts of jobs, revenues and tax collections. In 2011, ten percent of regional employment came from shale production in Texas, accounting for 100,000 jobs and $11.1 billion dollars in gross revenue. In 2009, West Virginia and Pennsylvania generated 57,000 new jobs and $1.7 billion dollars of tax collection based of its shale production (Sovacool, 2014). However, it’s not all rainbows and butterflies when it comes to hydraulic fracturing. There is definitely a dark side. There are many negative issues that have to be dealt with, especially in California. Currently, California is in the midst of one of its largest droughts in recorded history, and fracking requires massive amounts of water. According the Western States Petroleum Association, an average of 127,127 gallons of water was used to frack a single well in California in 2013 (Norimitsu, 2014). Hydraulic fracturing in some cases can consume up to 20 million gallons (80,000 m3) of water per well. As of February 2014 reported that there are over 12 thousand wells in California, and over 1.1 million in the United States. With California having such a vast amount of oil, that number could continue to rise (). One oil well in the state of California last year used 87 percent of the water consumed in a year by a family of four (Norimitsu, 2014). Depleting more water in a state that is already in a drought state of emergency is only going to create more problems. Once the water is used, it must be disposed. About 85 percent of the water is left underground. This action is very controversial because objectors to fracking say the wastewater can seep through the ground and contaminate nearby land. The rest of the water is trucked off for disposal, or lost to leaks and spills. Leaks can occur in the cement that encases the proppants injected into the well. The proppants can escape through the concrete and travel underneath the ground. Finally, pollution can occur during incorrect disposal of the contaminated wastewater. Once the water flows back out of the well, it contains the original chemicals in the proppants plus the toxic substances from the cracked rock. This water needs to be disposed of correctly, but sometimes that is not the case. For instance, in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico alone over 1,264 leaks or spills have been reported since 2005. On November 14, 2014 NBC Bay Area news reported that state officials allowed oil and gas companies to pump nearly 3 billion gallons of wastewater from fracking into underground aquifers that could have been used as drinking water (Stock, 2014).The water issues that are in concurrence with fracking go beyond the mass amount of water it takes to complete the project. In a 2011 Duke University study that sampled water from 68 private wells in New York found “evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale gas extraction.” The study also found that water wells closest to drilling activities had higher rates of methane contamination (McGlynn, 2011).Many people are upset about what it does to the quality of their water. In 2008, a family living in Springville, New York started to see some of the side effects of hydraulic fracking. The family lives roughly 30 miles from one of the world’s richest natural gas fields. During the year their landlord leased property near their house to the U.S. Energy Corporation that they began to frack. Shortly after, they were able to lite their kitchen faucet water on fire, and became very sick, because of the seemingly massive amount of gas in their water. This was not the only case of people near fracking sites having flammable faucet water. In 2008, millions of gallons of wastewater from natural gas production flowed into a Pennsylvania river, forcing local residents to drink bottled water. EPA officials described it as “one of the largest failures in U.S. history to supply clean drinking water to the public” (Kelly, 2011).Opponents of fracking grumble that fracking is exempt from many major environmental laws including the Safe Drinking Water Act and parts of the Clean Air Act. The critics claim that the lack of regulation leads to surface water with cancer-causing chemicals, air pollutants, and turns quiet villages into industrial zones. In fact, natural gas companies are exempt from seven of 15 major environmental laws that apply to most other industries, including the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Air and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability (“Superfund”) Acts. (McGlynn, 2011).The Mayor of Lancaster, R. Rex Perris said ''It's ludicrous to think that we're going to prevent anybody from getting at that oil. The only thing we should be focusing on, because it's the only thing we're going to be successful at, is regulating how they get to that oil'' (Normitsu, 2013). A significant problem for many environmentalists is the amount of chemicals that are used in the fracking process. In many cases the chemicals that are injection into the ground, along with water, are unknown. A District of Colorado representative said “The problem is not natural gas or even hydraulic fracturing itself. The problem is that dangerous chemicals are being injected into the Earth, polluting our water sources, without any oversight whatsoever.” (McGlynn, 2011)An ever-significant issue to the people of California is earthquakes. Since records began in 1776, Youngstown, Ohio had not felt a single earthquake. That all changed in 2011 when more than 100 tremors were recorded. Probably to no surprise, the first earthquake was just thirteen days after they began fracking at Ohio’s Northstar 1 well (Science, 2013). Many Californians are undoubtedly aware of the fact that the state is already on the verge of a massive earthquake. Compromising the land in California by cracking the land underneath the earth’s surface to acquire oil may not be the best idea. It is also particularly unfortunate that this bountiful shale oil formation sits below the California’s Monterey Formation, one of the world’s most fertile agriculture regions in the state if not the country. It is also some of the most beautiful land in the state. The county of Monterey actually holds the largest planted acreage of Chardonnay in California (Norimitsu, 2013). Since vineyards and farming are such a vital part of their local economy many of the citizens do not like the idea. Local Resident, Kurt Gollick said: “I can tell you this from our perspective, farming is our number one source of income in Monterey County. It’s an eight billion-dollar industry, (so) if fracking introduces contamination to the water or anything else that affects growing practices, then that would be a huge point of conflict, no question about it” (Sommer, 2012).The fracking industry can by detrimental to a cities landscape because multiple drilling sites will have to be established, each requiring a lot of water. The water is often trucked in on massive semi trucks that could be unfavorable to the beauty of the area. Both sides have very substantial arguments to make. Hydraulic fracturing in California can result in serious economic growth. However, it does not appear that the risk is currently worth the reward. Undoubtedly, the amount of energy shale gas can provide is very tempting to use as a replacement for other fossil fuels, both short term and long term. The mayor of Lancaster was right when he said that it is ludicrous to think we are not going to get to that oil. But it is also right that we should proceed cautiously. Californians and environmentalists are trying to slow down the progress of big business using a technology that that they believe is not yet ready. In the future when the technology is more refined, collecting the massive amount of shale oil in California will be a very important. However, the technology still needs some work. Currently, new advances are being researched; including lowering the amount of water required to frack each well. In California, that is crucial. Obviously, leaks and pollutants that lead to families becoming ill and not being able use the water out their faucet’s is not acceptable. California is on the verge of something that will surely be very beneficial. But currently, in the midst of California’s water drought, the damaging effects to the environment and the landscape, and the long list of errors that have been made in other states, now is not the best time for the Golden State to be fracking. ReferencesPhilbin, K. S. (2013). California Drilling Barred for Failure to Consider Fracing Impact. Energy Litigation Journal, 12(2), 29.Sovacool, B. K. (2014). Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shalegas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37249-264. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.068NORIMITSU, O., & Lovett, I. (2014, May 15). California’s Thirst Shapes Debate Over Fracking. New York Times. pp. A14-A19.Stock14, Stephen. "Fracking Water Injected into Clean Aquifers." NBC Bay Area. N.p., 14 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2014.McGlynn, D. (2011). New EPA Study Links Fracking, Water Pollution. CQ Researcher, 21(44), 1062-1063.Kelly, S. (2011). THE TROUBLE WITH FRACKING. National Wildlife (World Edition), 49(6), 16-17.Fracking Linked to Earthquakes in Ohio. (2013). Science Teacher, 80(7), 20-22.NORIMITSU, O. (2013, June 2). Fracking Tests Ties Between California 'Oil and Ag' Interests. New York Times. pp. 11-19.Sommer, Lauren. "With Large Oil Reserve, California Faces Fracking Debate." QUEST. KQED Science, 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.McGlynn, D. (2011). Fracking Controversy: THE ISSUES. CQ Researcher, 21(44), 1051-1057. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download