x
There are right ways and wrong ways to obtain energy while protecting the environment. So far, we have been doing it mostly wrong.
My geology career started in the wake of the 1970s “energy crisis,” and I understand the need for domestic shale gas and tight oil development. These resources
could not be recovered economically without fracking. My research on shale gas
during the first decade of my career was focused on helping to solve the problems
of recovering hydrocarbons from these rocks (e.g., Soeder 1988). The eventual
development of shale gas and tight oil in the United States was a success story that
ended American dependence on imported oil (Soeder and Borglum 2019).
I spent two decades investigating water resources as a hydrologist for the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and I became acutely aware of just how vulnerable
both surface water bodies and groundwater are to the careless acts of humans.
Protecting the environment had always been important to me, but tracking the
migration of chlorinated solvents and other assorted nasties in groundwater brought
it into a much sharper focus. I first began to look at the potential effects of fracking
on water resources in 2008 while living in Maryland and learning that gas production from the Marcellus Shale had taken off next door in Pennsylvania (Soeder and
Kappel 2009). My research efforts since then have been centered largely on energy
and the environment.
During my eight years with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), I was
involved in a multi-agency government assessment of the environmental risks of
shale gas and tight oil development (Soeder and Kent 2018). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), DOE, and the USGS were the lead agencies on this
assessment. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was also brought
in to provide public health risk assessments, and the National Science Foundation
(NSF) was included so the government agencies were aware of and not duplicating
NSF-supported research at universities. The multi-agency assessment ran from
2012 to 2017 and produced several substantial reports (Multiagency 2014;
USDOE 2015).
The federal multi-agency investigation identified seven areas of concern with
fracking and shale energy development. These were (1) determining new locations
of future resource development that might be affected by fracking, (2) water availability, given the large volumes needed for fracking, (3) effects of frack fluid chemicals and produced fluids on surface water and groundwater quality, (4) air quality
impacts from well installation practices and the production of hydrocarbons, (5)
induced seismicity from both fracking and the underground disposal of produced
water, (6) both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem impacts, and (7) human health
effects from exposure to fracking and shale gas production (USDOE 2015).
For years, the issue of fracking has been controversial, surrounded by sensationalism, hype, denial, disbelief, hand-wringing, and outright fiction. Because government agencies by and large do not embrace controversy, my first book on the subject
(Soeder 2017) required 4 years, a dozen reviews, and eight revisions to receive
approval. It was not until after I had left government service in 2017 to direct a
university research program that I started working on the book you are currently
Preface
There are right ways and wrong ways to obtain energy while protecting the environment. So far, we have been doing it mostly wrong.
My geology career started in the wake of the 1970s “energy crisis,” and I understand the need for domestic shale gas and tight oil development. These resources
could not be recovered economically without fracking. My research on shale gas
during the first decade of my career was focused on helping to solve the problems
of recovering hydrocarbons from these rocks (e.g., Soeder 1988). The eventual
development of shale gas and tight oil in the United States was a success story that
ended American dependence on imported oil (Soeder and Borglum 2019).
I spent two decades investigating water resources as a hydrologist for the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and I became acutely aware of just how vulnerable
both surface water bodies and groundwater are to the careless acts of humans.
Protecting the environment had always been important to me, but tracking the
migration of chlorinated solvents and other assorted nasties in groundwater brought
it into a much sharper focus. I first began to look at the potential effects of fracking
on water resources in 2008 while living in Maryland and learning that gas production from the Marcellus Shale had taken off next door in Pennsylvania (Soeder and
Kappel 2009). My research efforts since then have been centered largely on energy
and the environment.
During my eight years with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), I was
involved in a multi-agency government assessment of the environmental risks of
shale gas and tight oil development (Soeder and Kent 2018). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), DOE, and the USGS were the lead agencies on this
assessment. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was also brought
in to provide public health risk assessments, and the National Science Foundation
(NSF) was included so the government agencies were aware of and not duplicating
NSF-supported research at universities. The multi-agency assessment ran from
2012 to 2017 and produced several substantial reports (Multiagency 2014;
USDOE 2015).
The federal multi-agency investigation identified seven areas of concern with
fracking and shale energy development. These were (1) determining new locations
of future resource development that might be affected by fracking, (2) water availability, given the large volumes needed for fracking, (3) effects of frack fluid chemicals and produced fluids on surface water and groundwater quality, (4) air quality
impacts from well installation practices and the production of hydrocarbons, (5)
induced seismicity from both fracking and the underground disposal of produced
water, (6) both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem impacts, and (7) human health
effects from exposure to fracking and shale gas production (USDOE 2015).
For years, the issue of fracking has been controversial, surrounded by sensationalism, hype, denial, disbelief, hand-wringing, and outright fiction. Because government agencies by and large do not embrace controversy, my first book on the subject
(Soeder 2017) required 4 years, a dozen reviews, and eight revisions to receive
approval. It was not until after I had left government service in 2017 to direct a
university research program that I started working on the book you are currently
Preface