Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Suzuki

GET UPDATES FROM David Suzuki
 

What's the Fracking Problem with Natural Gas?

Posted: 09/12/2012 12:21 pm

At least 38 earthquakes in Northeastern B.C. over the past few years were caused by hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking), according to a report by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. Studies have found quakes are common in many places where that natural gas extraction process is employed.

It's not unexpected that shooting massive amounts of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure into the earth to shatter shale and release natural gas might shake things up. But earthquakes aren't the worst problem with fracking.

Hydraulic fracturing requires massive amounts of water. Disposing of the toxic wastewater, as well as accidental spills, can contaminate drinking water and harm human health. And pumping wastewater into the ground can further increase earthquake risk. Gas leakage also leads to problems, even causing tap water to become flammable! In some cases, flaming tap water is the result of methane leaks from fracking. And methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide!

Those are all serious cause for concern -- but even they don't pose the greatest threat from fracking. The biggest issue is that it's just one more way to continue our destructive addiction to fossil fuels. As easily accessible oil, gas, and coal reserves become depleted, corporations have increasingly looked to "unconventional" sources, such as those in the tar sands or under deep water, or embedded in underground shale deposits.

And so we end up with catastrophes such as the spill -- and deaths of 11 workers -- from the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. We turn a blind eye to the massive environmental devastation of the tar sands, including contamination of water, land, and air; destruction of the boreal forest; endangerment of animals such as caribou; and impacts on human health. We blast the tops off of mountains to get coal. We figure depleted water supplies, a few earthquakes, and poisoned water are the price we have to pay to maintain our fossil-fuelled way of life.

As Bill McKibben points out, it didn't have to be this way. "We could, as a civilization, have taken that dwindling supply and rising price as a signal to convert to sun, wind, and other noncarbon forms of energy," he wrote in the New York Times Review of Books, adding that "it would have made eminent sense, most of all because it would have aided in the fight against global warming, the most difficult challenge the planet faces."

Some people, mostly from the fossil fuel industry, have argued that natural gas could be a "bridging" fuel while we work on expanding renewable energy development and capacity, by providing a source of energy with fewer greenhouse gas emissions when burned than coal and oil.

But numerous studies, including one by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute, have found this theory to be extremely problematic. To begin, leaks of natural gas -- itself a powerful greenhouse gas -- and the methane that is often buried with it, contribute to global warming. Burning natural gas and the industrial activity required to extract and transport it also contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. As McKibben notes, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research concluded that switching to natural gas "would do little to help solve the climate problem."

More than anything, continued and increasing investment in natural gas extraction and infrastructure will slow investment in, and transition to, renewable energy. Would companies that build gas-fired power plants be willing to shut them down, or pay the high cost of capturing and storing carbon, as the world gets serious about the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Just as fossil fuels from conventional sources are finite and are becoming depleted, those from difficult sources will also run out. If we put all our energy and resources into continued fossil fuel extraction, we will have lost an opportunity to have invested in renewable energy.

If we want to address global warming, along with the other environmental problems associated with our continued rush to burn our precious fossil fuels as quickly as possible, we must learn to use our resources more wisely, kick our addiction, and quickly start turning to sources of energy that have fewer negative impacts.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

For more insights from David Suzuki, please read Everything Under the Sun (Greystone Books/David Suzuki Foundation), by David Suzuki and Ian Hanington, now available in bookstores and online.

 
 
 
FOLLOW CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA
At least 38 earthquakes in Northeastern B.C. over the past few years were caused by hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking), according to a report by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. Studies h...
At least 38 earthquakes in Northeastern B.C. over the past few years were caused by hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking), according to a report by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. Studies h...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 17
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:22 AM on 09/30/2012
Does anyone have any idea how much gas is flared off each day? Do you know how much CH4 escapes from the infrastructure between the well and the consumer and into the atmosphere?? Do you know how much energy/voltage is lost between the gas power station and the consumer via the power lines?? Do you know how much gas and fuel is wasted by the consumer? and so on,.....
All this waste is on the increase. Saving all this wasted energy would be the equivalent to all the gas from the fracked wells that have been drilled so far and thousands more to follow. It`s not rocket science ya know.
01:03 PM on 09/16/2012
How do we produce the materials required to manufacture all these windmills, solar panels etc with out petroleum?
01:24 AM on 09/25/2012
You use it sparingly. We are using fossil fuels faster than we ever have before and we are going to run out at some point. Whether it's in 20 years or 100 doesn't really matter. Change will come when the non-renewable resources run out (or the ecosystems give out). The question is do we want to wait until we hit a wall or do we want to change gradually?
12:15 AM on 09/14/2012
The fruit fly scientist should get some of his facts straight. Leaks arn't from fracking, they are from poor well procedures.
09:45 PM on 09/13/2012
Like it or not, Suzuki is right. We just don't want to give up our prosperity or way of life in the interest of a cleaner, sfaer world.
06:27 AM on 09/30/2012
You need to do some research instead of reading something somewhere and reposting it.
10:07 AM on 09/13/2012
This article entitled “Fracking: Considerations for risk management and financing,” addresses a number of risk management considerations and strategies surrounding fracking, including the potential for strengthened insurance requirements to protect the public from ultimately bearing the cost of pollution.

http://insight.milliman.com/article.php?cntid=8107
08:05 AM on 09/13/2012
Many oil & gas companies still flare their gas at the well-site (essentially light the gas on fire and let it burn without capturing it instead). How about a law to stop that first?
06:28 AM on 09/30/2012
Exactly. If the wasted energy was capped, we would not need all this new energy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tamikenn57
Working for a healthy and safe global environment
08:57 PM on 09/12/2012
The U.S. makes the presumption of this magic 100 year supply of natural gas and energy independence. And both parties have accepted this number. Unfortunately profits are more important the national long term planning. Profit potential on the global market is already setting up the export of LNG from the fracked natural gas. The U.S. is preaching their 'success' at reducing carbon release to levels of 15 years prior. Gas production should be at the point of raising the carbon production rates going forward. Coal utilization for U.S. power is offset by exporting the coal for global power production. Per Forbes DOE has completed proof of concept of methyl hydrate extraction, with all the horrendous risks associated. http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2012/09/08/gamechanging-natural-gas-tech-gets-green-light/
07:58 PM on 09/12/2012
And the answer is to invest in very inefficient solar panels and wind turbines that clobber nature with less thant 15% efficiencies and no payback ever? These technologies are heavy metal users and have significant polution problems with the metal extractions from the earth? A scientist should be well rounded intellectually, not fat and lazy in the thought process.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr e MaN
Political Atheist
03:28 PM on 09/12/2012
Fracking is a dangerous toxic process. Time to move on to better solutions
12:55 PM on 09/12/2012
Not to mention the millions of inadequately plugged and abandoned wells already in existence. And the frackers want to add millions more to the mix???
http://ecohearth.com/eco-zine/green-issues/1609-abandoned-leaking-oil-wells-natural-gas-well-leaks-disaster.html
12:12 AM on 09/14/2012
frackers don't add wells. If you want to blame for poor ground water and leaks, blames well drilling, cementing and management, fracking has nothing to do with it
06:08 AM on 09/30/2012
I have 6 years previous offshore drilling industry experience and now a further 2+ years of non stop research into fracking. You saying frackers don`t add wells is quite bizarre. They can drill anywhere between 5 and 20+ wells per drill pad/well bore. Each of those wells can be fracked several times during it`s lifetime. Each frack job involves very high pressure pumping which also vibrates the well casings and the cement around the outside of the cement. Once that outside cement becomes cracked by the high pressures and vibrations and porous from the high saline solutions and acids used during fracking, there is very little that can be done to re-cement areas that may compromise well integrity. Once a well becomes none productive, all the drillers want to do is plug it and get the hell out of there. There is nothing in the regs that says the drillers HAVE to run wireline casing cement logging tools to check the integrity of the well between the outside of the casing and the well bore before they plug and abandon. So if you had done your research as I have, you would have understood my comment and not come out with such rubbish. Fracking (if pursued at full steam ahead all around the world) involves drilling   millions more wells which in time will be added to the mix of existing wells which are leaking RIGHT NOW.I bet you did not hear about the recent Elgin Platform gas leak did you. Want to know why? Because of
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlairCase
12:51 PM on 09/12/2012
Alaska has more than 3,500 earthquakes each year. No one suspects fracking itself causes earthquakes. However, wastewater injection wells are suspected of increasing the number of minor tremors in areas already prone to minor quakes, but there is no indication that wastewater well causes earthquakes in regions not already prone to earthquakes. The solution is to drill the wasteweater injection werlls in areas where they don't cause quakes. All drilling and mining operations produce wastewaters, not just fracking. Injection welll are also used to dispose of wastewater produced by manufacturing, which tends to be toxic. Fracking fluid is about 99.5% water and sand. It has to be disposed off in injection wells because of its salinity, not because it contains toxic chemicals..It can be safely treated at wastewater treatment plants and recycled as drinking water. Haliburton offers one fracking fluid mix that contains no chemicals not approved by the FDA as food supplements.
11:46 PM on 09/12/2012
Haliburton?

You mean the company conneted to Cheney, Bush etal?

No thanks!