The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
A number of recent reports have indicated that new techniques of "fracking" are able by intense hydraulic pressures to unlock huge amounts of oil and gas reserves from once abandoned sites. Right now a land boom is taking place in the conspicuous locations of yesterday, such as the Permian Basin, in West Texas, the Eagle Ford region in Central Texas, and the Bakken in the Dakotas. In my weekly column for Defining Ideas, I explain that fracking is a promising technology, but that it is environmentally risky.
The numbers on fracking are quite staggering. Production in the Bakken has jumped from virtually nothing a few years ago to 400,000 barrels a day today, with the prospects that better technology will push that total up to a million barrels a day by 2020. Similar gains are reported in both the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford. It is almost as if the laws of scarcity have been repealed. Daniel Yergin, a notable energy expert, puts the point in geopolitical terms: "This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States."
With oil prices again hovering above $100 per barrel, bringing these sites on line quickly could well reduce our dependence on both deep water drilling and Middle Eastern imports. Under some scenarios, the rapid displacement of old energy sources might even reduce pollution levels overall.
Most environmentalists respond by saying that fracking should be off-limits, almost as a matter of first principle.
But the dogmatic stance of some environmental groups is not defensible in light of the potential gains from fracking. We must, however, proceed cautiously. Here is one intermediate strategy that bears promise. Start fracking in remote regions of Texas and the Dakotas, and hope that improved fracking techniques will allow exploration at a greater range of sites.
Euphoric predictions of how fracking offers some magic bullet to solve the energy crisis are suspect, as are doomsday predictions that fracking destroys everything that lies in its path. On this, as other environmental issues, the complexity of the remedial issues should make moderates of us all—even libertarians. I explain further in my column.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
Ironically, I discussed this with my brother last week. He lives in West Texas at the epicenter of the the Permian Basin oil industry (Midland/Odessa area). I asked how the drought was affecting the crops and if anyone was able to irrigate to compensate. He replied that many with good wells were erecting tanks and storing water to sell for use in fracking. In an area that receives very little rain as it is, the consumption of water for fracking is a realistic concern, but not, in my uninformed opinion, one that should be used to shut down the process. The problem should be studied and the cost/benefits weighed.
Apr '11
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
John Stossel talked about this on his show May 12th.
Feb '11
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
This is actually my area, and I spent a lot of time on this issue. I spoke with a lot of oil industry people and also geophysics professors and there is a broad agreement - hydrofracking has great potential, but the risks are really high. This isn't just a bunch of earnest children in green jackets bothering hardworking people talking about Greenpeace, it really is a big concern. I almost never defer to environmental concerns, but hydrofracking is a special case: it does a whole lot of damage in a lot of ways.
I agree with most of Prof. Epstein's column but the environmental concerns here go much, much further than almost any other form of energy. My biggest concern is the effect on groundwater - in a lot of areas that could be disastrous. But no, I still don't think the whole thing needs to be shut down, I just think that it should be done slowly.
Jun '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
I actually heard we don't need oil any more and that green energies will not only provide jobs but also put this country back on the road to prosperity!
Feb '11
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
Given the alternative of continued dependence on Arab and South American dictators... I will bet the farm on fracking and nuclear.
Dec '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
Most of the complaints of groundwater corruption that are actually linked to drilling activities can be traced to the post-drilling handling of the waste water. The actual frac occurs so far below the water table as to be a highly unlikely source of contamination at best.
That said, I don't understand why so many drillers frac with water when gases are an option.
May '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
For perspective, does traditional oil well drilling cause any environmental risks?
Dec '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
All energy producing methods - including solar and wind - carry safety and environmental risks. So does overheating and freezing.
Sep '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
At the risk of being redacted by an editor, I have to admit I did a double take when I read the headline -- thinking the a was an i and the g had been dropped in the second word. But I saw it was Richard Epstein making the point and knew that my eyes must deceive me.
Dec '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
Fabulous article and premise, Prof! It's a shame your decision matrix is never the sort of thing utilized by the NRDC or Earth Justice. Nice suggestion, though. A few comments:
"Radioactive" contamination. This is standard scare practiceby the above outfits. Take a shovel-full of dirt from your yard, put it in a bucket of water, and skim off the light material that floats to the top. Then pour it through a coarse screen and separate out the larger components. Now dry out the remainder, and measure the radioactivity of that smaller amount. Assuming that the larger rocks and the flotsam weren't radioactive, you will have naturally occuring radioactivity, divided by a smaller remaining mass and, technically, you are above background radiation levels. This is always done when claims of radioactive contamination are made by certain groups.
Failure of previous operators to responsibly clean up sites (cited by the NRDC in the link), is an enforcement issue, not a technology issue.
"Possible evidence of groundwater contamination" raised by NRDC, refering to EPA draft study. A substance found above the Method Detection Limits used by the laboratory, technically, impacted. "Contamination" has no meaning and the NRDC knows that.
(continued)
Dec '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
Within the industry, regulators and all, the word contamination tends to be avoided. It would never make it through my review of somebody's draft. If a substance was detected in the lab above the MDL, that statement would be made, then a comparison would be made between the MDL and the appropriate standard, in this case the GCTL (Groundwater Cleanup Target Level). Young, inexperienced employees use words like "contaminated", because they have yet to sit in a witness chair. The appropriate phrase that would replace the language from the discarded draft would be, "X was detected above the MDL, which is (in excess or beneath) the GCTL".
And, to ParisP, any drilling poses environmental risks. Even the very act of passing through the first few feet of soil (surficial), past a confining layer (usually clay in the shallow zones), and into the subsurface creates a breach, potentially allowing impacts from septic tanks or animal waste to enter the subsurface aquifer. Drilling needs to be done carefully by responsible people.
Deeper drilling requires lubrication that has direct impacts to subsurface aquifers. The dilution factor to these impacts is enormous, over an aquifer, but they must be considered.
Aug '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
The tree-hugger in me was particularly attracted to this portion of the article:
Richard Epstein:
For starters, EarthJustice is right to insist that individual instances of pollution that can be traced to fracking should be awarded full and generous compensation. Although it has often been suggested that the polluter need not pay whenever it took rigorous precautions to prevent harm, that position should be rejected. As was urged by that great nineteenth century libertarian, Baron George Bramwell, a strict liability—no excuses—system better elicits sound social behaviors. If the responsible parties are unable to pay the damages and stay in business, it is then just as well that the firm withdraw, because the external harms are greater than its private gains...
The effectiveness of this system of damages does not come solely from the awards in pollution cases. Rather the threat of damages awards reduces the frequency of pollution spills in the first place. Large solvent oil drillers will respond to financial incentives even in the absence of a regulatory scheme.
Where can a small and not-very-impressive serpent go to find conservation organizations that advocate for strict liability without also demanding the "standard" "environmental" regulatory baggage?
May '10
Re: The Fracking Panacea? Not Quite.
Every time this topic comes up, I keep thinking it's a Battlestar Galactica episode... :-\ I won't lie. I get a little nervous.