Why every serious environmentalist should favour fracking

Aoxomoxoa said:
A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world, demonstrates Richard Muller (Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley since 1980) in Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking. His co-author, Elizabeth Muller, is his daughter and co-founder (with him) of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit working on environmental issues.

As such, air pollution is currently harming far more people than the more distant challenge of global warming – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India. They state:

“The Health Effects Institute estimated that air pollution in 2010 led to 3.2 million deaths that year [across the world], including 1.2 million in China and 620,000 in India. And the pollution is getting worse as global use of coal continues to grow…

The Mullers argues that both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the responsible development and utilisation of shale gas:
“China not only has the greatest yearly death toll from air pollution, but is also key for mitigating global warming. China surpassed the US in CO2 production in 2006; growth was so rapid that by late 2013, China’s CO2 emissions are nearly twice those of the US. If its growth continues at this rate (and China has averaged 10% GDP growth per year for the past 20 years) China will be producing more CO2 per person than the US by 2023. If the US were to disappear tomorrow, Chinese growth alone would bring worldwide emissions back to the same level in four years. To mitigate global warming, it is essential to slow worldwide emissions, not just those in the developed countries. And we feel this must be done without slowing the economic growth of the emerging world…”

“It is believed that China has enormous reserves of shale gas, perhaps 50% larger than those of the US. If that shale gas can be utilised, it offers China a wonderful opportunity to mitigate air pollution while still allowing energy growth… Industry experts believe that the cubic metres of gas recovered from a given well can be doubled in the near future by better design of the fracking stages to match geologic formation characteristics. And they also believe that number could double again in the next decade. Soon that will mean four times the production for only a minor increase in cost. Such an advance is expected to turn currently difficult fields into major producers, to open up fields in China, Europe, and the US that are currently unprofitable.”

The authors consider some of the concerns raised by opponents of fracking; and conclude that they are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.

Developed economies should therefore help emerging economies switch from coal to natural gas; and shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible and shared freely.

And China and Europe are well placed to take advantage of fracking. The high price paid in China and Europe for imported natural gas, typically US$10 per million BTU (compared to the US$3.50 in the US) means that the cost of shale drilling and completion can be much higher and still be profitable.
The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.

DOWNLOAD FREE PDF


Source: http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/...ious-environmentalist-should-favour-fracking/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/...ious-environmentalist-should-favour-fracking/
Click to expand...
Wow...what a collection of strawmen.

First. Environmentalist are not some monolith that go what ever way some left leaning movie star points them too.

Second, The issues on fracking have to stand on their own. Yes, fracking is a valid technology and it can go a long way towards weening the industrial wests reliance of petroleum from unstable 3rd world countries. Yes, it is a significantly cleaner fossil fuel than either coal or oil. None of which means shit if fracking isn't regulated appropriately to be as safe as possible while limiting it's impact on the environment. Abusing the technology and in the process violating the property rights of others, harming the environment and presenting a public health hazard only serves to undermine the technology and what's sad about that is that that is completely unnecessary.
 
Riva said:
It would be better to find a less destructive alternative, imo. For instance, one big concern about fracking is the amount of water it diverts from municipalities. We are coming up against serious fresh water shortages and this will certainly make them worse.
Click to expand...
Only in the far western States.
 
I Love America said:
how is there a water shortage?

matter can neither be created nor destroyed

Anyways, the Warmists tell us that seas will rise so there will be plenty of water.
Click to expand...
Go live out in the Western US for a few years and get back with us on that rant. And by the way, they need potable water for fracking.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
What he means is a lot of the water is not recovered and remains down the fracking well.

Q: It's my understanding that fracking uses massive amounts of water. How can Texas justify fracking while much of the state is experiencing drought and water restrictions?-Connie Prill (of Plano, Texas)

A: High-volume hydraulic fracturing of a single well can take two to five million gallons of water. That's a lot of water, and especially a concern in drier areas such as the Eagle Ford of south Texas. Other things require lots of water, though. A Texas golf course might need a million gallons a day for summer irrigation. With a thousand golf courses in the state, that's a lot of water, too. The main issues with hydraulic fracturing are not to allow too much groundwater pumping and to restrict users from taking too much water from any one stream, river, or lake. Some companies are increasingly recycling and reusing water for multiple fracking operations, a positive development. The more recycling or reusing that is done, the less water is required and wastewater is generated. The drier the area, though, the bigger the potential problem.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ers-your-questions-on-fracking/1#.UqMZ7Krp3lY
Click to expand...
And what's your position on Petroleum Derived Waste being exempted from Federal hazardous waste regulations? That does include fracking fluids and return water which are either very corrosive (pH <2) and/or are highly contaminated with aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylene, etc).
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
What's even better is that the House of Saud will go back to being a few Bedouin tents in the desert. It is the biggest fucking thing that has happened since the discovery of oil yet there are so many fools that can't see it.
Click to expand...
That's not true. The economic potential of fracking is quite evident. So are the environmental and public health problems if the technology isn't managed properly.

I would agree that those who advocate baning the technology are fools. Like wise those who would have fracking deregulated are equally as foolish. It's not like there isn't an acceptable happy medium in which this technology is advanced while public health, property rights and the environment are adequately protected.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And what's your position on Petroleum Derived Waste being exempted from Federal hazardous waste regulations? That does include fracking fluids and return water which are either very corrosive (pH <2) and/or are highly contaminated with aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylene, etc).
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the States but that won't happen in the UK indeed all returned water must be kept in closed containers and not open pools. There are many industrial processes that provide acidic effluent or contaminated with cyclic hydrocarbons. Why is this any different?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I can't speak for the States but that won't happen in the UK indeed all returned water must be kept in closed containers and not open pools. There are many industrial processes that provide acidic effluent or contaminated with cyclic hydrocarbons. Why is this any different?
Click to expand...
Well in the US it's different because petroleum derived wastes are exempted from hazardous waste treatment standards which, as you just said, isn't the case in the UK. That's hardly insignificant.
 
Val said:
so you say, but many concerned citizens are not convinced...

the analysis seems shortsighted and driven by profit margins.
Click to expand...

Food Watch is packed full of degrees suited to policy wanks; journalists; and bleeding hearts - Not a geological science researcher in the whole lot- In other words their goal is not actually about the safety of fracking, but the creation of policy to prevent it.

Where as actual geologists and environmental engineers are at least seeking out facts in order to understand real impacts.

The amount of water required to drill all 2916 of the Marcellus wells permitted in Pennsylvania in the first 11 months of 2010 would equal the amount of drinking water used by just one city, Pittsburgh, during the same period, says environmental engineering professor Jeanne VanBriesen, the study's lead author. Plus, she notes, water withdrawals of this new industry are taking the place of water once used by industries, like steel manufacturing, that the state has lost. Hydrogeologist David Yoxtheimer of Penn State's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research gives the withdrawals more context: Of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas development consumes 1.9 million gallons a day (mgd); livestock use 62 mgd; mining, 96 mgd; and industry, 770 mgd.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...hs-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-2

No one is claiming it is without problems- but what the OP said was that good regulation would solve those worries. A balanced article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-fracking-be-done-without-impacting-water
 
wiseones2cents said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drilling_chemicals

Democratic report: carcinogens injected into wells
Sat Apr 16, 9:58 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Millions of gallons of potentially hazardous chemicals and known carcinogens were injected into wells by leading oil and gas service companies from 2005-2009, a report by three House Democrats said Saturday.

The report said 29 of the chemicals injected were known-or-suspected human carcinogens. They either were regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act as risks to human health or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Methanol was the most widely used chemical. The substance is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The report was issued by Reps. Henry Waxman of California, Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.

The chemicals are injected during hydraulic fracturing, a process used in combination with horizontal drilling to allow access to natural gas reserves previously considered uneconomical.

The growing use of hydraulic fracturing has allowed natural gas production in the United States to reach levels not achieved since the early 1970s.

However, the process requires large quantities of water and fluids, injected underground at high volumes and pressure. The composition of these fluids ranges from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures with chemical additives.

The report said that from 2005-2009, the following states had at least 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids containing a carcinogen: Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wyoming, North Dakota, New Mexico, Montana and Utah.

States with 100,000 gallons or more of fluids containing a regulated chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act were: Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Mississippi and North Dakota.

The report said many chemical components were listed as "proprietary" or "trade secret."

"Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future," the report said.

"Yet, questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process."

The investigation of chemicals used in fracturing was started in the last Congress by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which then was controlled by Democrats. The committee asked the 14 leading oil and gas service companies to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing products they used between 2005 and 2009 and the chemical contents of those products

_____

Online: House Energy and Commerce Democratic site

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/

"

Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

No one denies the use of chemicals- BUT do note that there have been no reports of those chemicals effecting ground water used for drinking; Here is a recent study about this very thing:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-study-finds-fracking-chemicals-didnt-spread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top