188
10.1 Should Fracking Be Banned?
In early 2020, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
introduced a bill in the Senate called the “Ban Fracking Act,” while Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Representative Darren Soto (D-FL) introduced a similar bill in the House (Brown 2020). Senator Sanders stated that the
legislation is intended to deny federal permits in 2021 for fracking within 2500 feet
(760 m) of homes and schools, and then ban hydraulic fracturing nationwide in
2025. Sanders’ web site claims that fracking is “a danger to our water supply. It’s a
danger to the air we breathe, it has resulted in more earthquakes, and it’s highly
explosive. To top it all off, it’s contributing to climate change.”
As explained in Chap. 7, most induced seismicity is the result of wastewater
disposal, and EOR operations produce far more wastewater than fracking. Induced
seismicity needs to be controlled by better regulation of the Class II UIC disposal
wells, not by banning fracking. With the exception of a potentially greater frequency
of stray gas in groundwater, there is no definitive evidence that the risks to air or
water supplies from fracking are signficantly greater than the risks imposed by conventional oil and gas production. If by “highly explosive” Senator Sanders is referring to the fracking process itself, the rocks are cracked through the use of hydraulic
pressure, not explosives. Actual explosives have not been used for well stimulation
since the 1950s. If “explosive” refers to stray gas, the causes of this are not well
understood and need to be investigated before linking it to fracking.
The Global Energy Institute of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which typically
comes down on the side of industry responded to the Sanders-Merkley bill with a
statement that “...a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for
our economy. Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025
it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
by $7.1 trillion” (Brown 2020). If accurate, such costs and job losses would be
disastrous.
So is it possible to mitigate the environmental risks of fracking by banning the
practice? The short answer is yes, for the actual risks from fracking. However, as
has been discussed in detail throughout this book, none of the large-scale studies
done so far (i.e. Kell 2011; U.S. EPA 2016; McMahon et al. 2019) have been able
to show that the environmental risks from the fracking process are any more severe
than the environmental risks from any other kind of oil and gas development. There
is no evidence to support statements that fracking in the United States causes earthquakes or is explosive. It is important to note that the environmental risks from
O&G are significantly lower than those from mining and burning coal.
A ban on fracking would essentially shut down U.S. domestic oil and gas production because all unconventional and many conventional wells require hydraulic
fracturing to produce economical amounts of hydrocarbons. Some environmentalists may support this, and there is no argument that humanity needs to move away
from the use of fossil fuels and into a cleaner energy future. However, our economy
and technology are not yet equipped to deal with an abrupt absence of O&G, and a
more gradational transition is required.
10 Mitigation and Remediation
10.1 Should Fracking Be Banned?
In early 2020, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
introduced a bill in the Senate called the “Ban Fracking Act,” while Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Representative Darren Soto (D-FL) introduced a similar bill in the House (Brown 2020). Senator Sanders stated that the
legislation is intended to deny federal permits in 2021 for fracking within 2500 feet
(760 m) of homes and schools, and then ban hydraulic fracturing nationwide in
2025. Sanders’ web site claims that fracking is “a danger to our water supply. It’s a
danger to the air we breathe, it has resulted in more earthquakes, and it’s highly
explosive. To top it all off, it’s contributing to climate change.”
As explained in Chap. 7, most induced seismicity is the result of wastewater
disposal, and EOR operations produce far more wastewater than fracking. Induced
seismicity needs to be controlled by better regulation of the Class II UIC disposal
wells, not by banning fracking. With the exception of a potentially greater frequency
of stray gas in groundwater, there is no definitive evidence that the risks to air or
water supplies from fracking are signficantly greater than the risks imposed by conventional oil and gas production. If by “highly explosive” Senator Sanders is referring to the fracking process itself, the rocks are cracked through the use of hydraulic
pressure, not explosives. Actual explosives have not been used for well stimulation
since the 1950s. If “explosive” refers to stray gas, the causes of this are not well
understood and need to be investigated before linking it to fracking.
The Global Energy Institute of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which typically
comes down on the side of industry responded to the Sanders-Merkley bill with a
statement that “...a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for
our economy. Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025
it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
by $7.1 trillion” (Brown 2020). If accurate, such costs and job losses would be
disastrous.
So is it possible to mitigate the environmental risks of fracking by banning the
practice? The short answer is yes, for the actual risks from fracking. However, as
has been discussed in detail throughout this book, none of the large-scale studies
done so far (i.e. Kell 2011; U.S. EPA 2016; McMahon et al. 2019) have been able
to show that the environmental risks from the fracking process are any more severe
than the environmental risks from any other kind of oil and gas development. There
is no evidence to support statements that fracking in the United States causes earthquakes or is explosive. It is important to note that the environmental risks from
O&G are significantly lower than those from mining and burning coal.
A ban on fracking would essentially shut down U.S. domestic oil and gas production because all unconventional and many conventional wells require hydraulic
fracturing to produce economical amounts of hydrocarbons. Some environmentalists may support this, and there is no argument that humanity needs to move away
from the use of fossil fuels and into a cleaner energy future. However, our economy
and technology are not yet equipped to deal with an abrupt absence of O&G, and a
more gradational transition is required.
10 Mitigation and Remediation