Debate Club

Is Fracking a Good Idea? >

Fracking Is Not a Solution

The gas industry promises to "do it right," but there is no such thing

November 29, 2011

About John Detwiler:

John Detwiler is a private citizen with Marcellus Shale Protest, a grassroots group of 500 people in western Pennsylvania, and one of dozens of such groups across the United States. He is also a business owner, management consultant, and a Registered Professional Engineer.

Too many of America's government officials, nonprofit organizations, and private citizens are caught up in a futile effort to "manage" fracking, when we need to ban the practice altogether (as is already happening in parts of our nation and around the world).

"Fracking," and the entire process of shale gas extraction, is not the solution to our energy challenges, as the oil and gas industry portrays it to us; instead, it is scraping the bottom of the geological barrel, bringing unacceptable health, climate, and environmental consequences while delaying and distracting us from developing energy policies to ensure our children's future.

[See a slide show of 10 reasons Americans aren't talking about climate change.]

Marcellus Shale Protest advocates a total ban on shale gas extraction, instead of "regulation", because:

  1. Our scientific understanding is inadequate for responsible risk management. The environmental and health consequences of shale gas drilling are hard to measure, but pervasive and potentially irreversible. Proposed regulations address only those substances for which we already have criteria. The chemical mixture in "fracking fluid" is only one of many sources of environmental contamination; abandoned capped wells, after economic production ends, will be hazards for millennia to come--far longer than all human experience with concrete and steel.
  2. The industry's campaign of disinformation has hijacked public dialog. Citizens can't realistically appraise "risk-benefit" decisions when they are shouted-down by phony claims of imagined economic security and "energy independence," and while their actual experience (deteriorating health, destruction of property values, diversion of water and crop-land) is mocked and trivialized, and court cases remain sealed.
  3. Democratic institutions are being corrupted by industry money and power. Elected officials, university researchers and educators, consultants, and media outlets can't be relied upon to advocate for the public interest when they depend upon donations and revenues from industry.
  4. A false sense of urgency has been created. There is no near-term domestic demand for shale gas (which, ultimately, will be exported for higher margins to Asia). In truth, energy companies desperately need to prop up their accounting house-of-cards, of which "proven reserves" and "acreage held-by-production" are the foundation.

The gas industry promises to "do it right," when there is no such thing; and, in our current political climate, there is no chance of holding this industry accountable. Marcellus Shale Protest views the media fixation upon regulations and taxation as missing the point, and we continue to insist on a total ban as the only responsible public policy.

Tags:
energy policy and climate change,
natural gas,
gas prices
Other Arguments
#1
#3
#4
#5

No — Use foresight to get smart regulations in place, then we can talk about fracking

TRENT DOUGHERTY, Director of Legal Affairs for the Ohio Environmental Council

#6

Yes — Wind and solar power are intermittent and require coal and natural gas backup

JON OLSON, Associate Professor in the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin

#7

Yes — The economic benefits of the shale gas boom outweigh unproven risks

DANIEL SIMMONS, Director of State Affairs at the Institute for Energy Research

#8

Yes — Worried about chemicals used in fracking fluid? Let's break it down for you

CHRIS FAULKNER, Founder, President, and CEO of Breitling Oil and Gas

#9

Yes — Advances mean even more energy without a significant threat to groundwater

LEE FULLER, Vice President of Government Relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America

#10

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

How can you prove something won't happen without doing it to see?

Nick of OK 4:48PM January 25, 2012

Each of the author's points has a flaw:

1. There is NO process for which our scientific knowledge is completely adequate for responsible risk management, so to oppose fracing on those grounds is to oppose the whole fabric of human society.

2. If the industry is guilty of hijacking public dialog, so is the opposition. They are equally guilty of using inflammatory rhetoric (like "hijacking"), and spreading misinformation. Pot calling kettle black.

3. The public would have nothing to fear from academia, industry, media, or anyone else if they would just do the hard work of learning science, instead of looking for shortcuts and a scapegoat for their problems.

4. Energy companies are not resting on a house of cards. I mean, really? If that were so, BP would be bankrupt.

The bottom line is, as a previous commenter noted, the only way to avoid disrupting ecosystems is to use less and less concentrated energy. Not just a little less, but a lot. Are you ready for that kind of life? Then go for it, and teach others to do the same.

James of TX 4:39PM December 01, 2011

My story is the perfect expose on this horrible lie about regulation. The PaDEP granted a permit to SWN to drill within 70 feet of the main tributary to Baylor's Lake, an ancient glacial lake protected since 1920. Even though they now admit that they probably should not have allowed the well to be placed so close to this delicate ecosystem, PaDEP refuses to rescind the permit. On top of all of this, SWN has a record of poor site managment incurring violations for poor erosion control and failure to follow "Best management practices". Just down the road, they were sued for polluting 13 drinking water wells. And this is with all of the allegedly great regulatatory oversight provided by PaDEP. Big deal. Say a prayer for Baylor's Lake. They drill as I write. so sad.

Linda Melvin of PA 12:08AM December 01, 2011

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.


Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.


You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Obama's Remarkable Silence on Latin American Press Abuses

President Obama's silence on press freedom in Latin America is troubling.

Why the Media Is Giving Romney a Pass on Trump's Birtherism

Why the media hasn't pressed Mitt Romney about Donald Trump's birther fantasies.

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.

3 Reasons Why the Scott Walker Wisconsin Recall Election Matters

Scott Walker is a canary in a coal mine.

The Right's Fixation With 'Vetting' Obama

American voters can use the past four years to judge Obama's qualifications as president

Voters Tuning Out Flood of 2012 Super PAC, Campaign Ads

This will be the year of grassroots voters, not Nielsen families.

Advertisement