Politics of Power

Since 2011 the United States has increased its hydrocarbon production faster than any other country. As mentioned in this column before, this tremendous growth has been driven almost entirely by the combination of two independent drilling technologies, as well as the practices of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to exploit gas and oil locked within shale rock formations. The economic benefits from increased domestic hydrocarbon production are evident and quantifiable — from lower energy costs, new jobs and the possibility of an American manufacturing renaissance, to a rebalancing of the trade deficit, along with increased GDP growth. However, even as politicians on both sides of the aisle demand to be recognized as fracking’s biggest supporters, a storm of negative public sentiment rooted in environmental concern is growing across the country. In 2010, New York State — which sits atop the Marcellus Shale Formation — placed a moratorium on fracking. In 2013, Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado placed five-year bans on fracking, and the nearby town of Lafayette, Colo. prevented the drilling of any new oil and gas wells. As the spread of fracking continues, communities from Pennsylvania to North Dakota to Wyoming are questioning the utility of these wells.

It is often claimed that, in balance, the increased production of natural gas and the subsequent conversion from coal-fired power generation to natural gas power generation is beneficial for the environment and helps mitigate climate change. The burning of natural gas reduces air pollutants such as mercury and sulfur dioxide, which cause acid rain, and releases far less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. However, due to a lack of regulatory oversight and slow adoption of energy industry “best practices”, this statement lies in the realm of possibility and not truth.

There are four main environmental concerns for the production of natural gas. Throughout all stages of production, methane — a greenhouse gas that during its first 20 years in the atmosphere is 84 times more potent than CO2 — has the possibility to be released into the atmosphere. During the drilling process, chemically-enhanced fracking fluid can contaminate water sources. Drilling sites could also cause local air pollution such as smog, and fracking could possibly lead to increased seismic activity. All four of these concerns are rooted in the real-world experiences of drilling sites around our country. In a research poll conducted in September 2013, 49 percent of respondents opposed fracking, whereas just 44 percent favored it. The energy industry now faces crisis of confidence and needs to change the fundamental facts of natural gas production.

Through a combination of government regulations and the adoption of industry norms such as new emissions controls, better waste-water management practices and increased methane capture efficiency, shale gas production will be cleaner and more efficient. If the energy industry can realize the same magnitude in efficiency gains as they have in production gains going forward, the transition from coal to natural gas will be both environmentally and economically beneficial.

All this being said, shale gas is still a non-renewable resource that releases greenhouse gasses during production and consumption. It is most certainly not a solution to climate change and a warming planet. However, what it can do when implemented in its cleanest possible form, is create a technological bridge from the current hydrocarbon system to the renewable system of the future. The shale revolution gives us the ability to slow down the rate of greenhouse gas emissions while we accelerate the transition to a truly clean energy framework. That is the end goal we should not lose sight of.