Before i get into the posts, i thought it best i give you a definition so yu can form an opinion on something you know. I am sure the moderator's remarks will also have form an opinin beofre you read the arguments.
"Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer by a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally—certain veins or dikes are examples—and can create conduits along which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing, commonly known as fracing, fraccing, or fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas, and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction.[1] This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations."
The moderator's opening remarks
Feb 5th 2013 | Simon Wright 
To some fracking is a dirty word. But fracking (or “hydraulic
fracturing”) is the vital technology that has been deployed to unlock
vast quantities of natural gas from shale beds. In America shale gas has
turned energy markets upside down. Shale has quickly gone from nowhere
to providing a quarter of all gas production. In the coming decades this
may well rise to half. And as gas has billowed out of the ground,
prices have tumbled. Cheap gas has helped to boost America’s
petrochemical industry as well as other energy-intensive businesses, has
provided jobs at home and has forced electricity bills lower. And as
gas has replaced coal for power generation, America’s carbon emissions
have tumbled too.
It is not just America that might benefit. The type of shale rock formations that are giving up so much gas are found around the world. Exploration is beginning in Europe and China. Other countries such as Argentina and South Africa are also likely to have large quantities of shale gas beneath their soil. The potential bonanza is not universally welcomed. France has banned fracking; some American states have too. Other countries are also insisting on detailed investigations into the environmental effects of fracking and other aspects of shale gas extraction before allowing oil and gas companies to go ahead with drilling.
Our debate will consider the claims made against fracking and other issues surrounding shale gas extraction and ask whether they are justified and whether the problems outweigh the benefits for America and other countries of having a ready source of energy on their doorsteps. Michael Brune of the Sierra Club reckons that shale gas is more trouble than it is worth. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals under pressure into shale wells to break up the structure of the rock and so release the gas to flow out. He argues that is an inherently risky thing to do.
Mr Brune says that extracting shale gas comes with the risks of groundwater contamination, air pollution and gas leakage from wells and distribution systems. The disposal of waste water used in the process also presents a danger to the environment. This means that shale gas is not as clean as its proponents might claim. Moreover, unleashing huge supplies of gas will make America much more dependent on fossil fuels in the future.
Proponents of shale gas, like Amy Myers Jaffe of the University of California at Davis, accept that its extraction has consequences for the environment. But all forms of energy production at the scale required to power the world, including renewables, have some impact. And the potential environmental problems related to fracking can be managed and are far outweighed by the economic boost to America and the geopolitical advantages of a world that can reduce reliance on Russia and the Middle East for its energy.
The arguments are important. If fracking is as bad as some environmentalists claim, then shale gas has no future. And if shale gas and oil are to continue refashioning America’s energy landscape and also have a profound impact in other countries, the public must be confident that the extraction technologies are safe. Please add your voice to our virtual debate on the merits and drawbacks of fracking and shale gas.
It is not just America that might benefit. The type of shale rock formations that are giving up so much gas are found around the world. Exploration is beginning in Europe and China. Other countries such as Argentina and South Africa are also likely to have large quantities of shale gas beneath their soil. The potential bonanza is not universally welcomed. France has banned fracking; some American states have too. Other countries are also insisting on detailed investigations into the environmental effects of fracking and other aspects of shale gas extraction before allowing oil and gas companies to go ahead with drilling.
Our debate will consider the claims made against fracking and other issues surrounding shale gas extraction and ask whether they are justified and whether the problems outweigh the benefits for America and other countries of having a ready source of energy on their doorsteps. Michael Brune of the Sierra Club reckons that shale gas is more trouble than it is worth. Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals under pressure into shale wells to break up the structure of the rock and so release the gas to flow out. He argues that is an inherently risky thing to do.
Mr Brune says that extracting shale gas comes with the risks of groundwater contamination, air pollution and gas leakage from wells and distribution systems. The disposal of waste water used in the process also presents a danger to the environment. This means that shale gas is not as clean as its proponents might claim. Moreover, unleashing huge supplies of gas will make America much more dependent on fossil fuels in the future.
Proponents of shale gas, like Amy Myers Jaffe of the University of California at Davis, accept that its extraction has consequences for the environment. But all forms of energy production at the scale required to power the world, including renewables, have some impact. And the potential environmental problems related to fracking can be managed and are far outweighed by the economic boost to America and the geopolitical advantages of a world that can reduce reliance on Russia and the Middle East for its energy.
The arguments are important. If fracking is as bad as some environmentalists claim, then shale gas has no future. And if shale gas and oil are to continue refashioning America’s energy landscape and also have a profound impact in other countries, the public must be confident that the extraction technologies are safe. Please add your voice to our virtual debate on the merits and drawbacks of fracking and shale gas.
The proposer's opening remarks
Feb 5th 2013 | Amy Myers Jaffe
Energy is a fundamental service needed for daily living. Lack of
access to fuel is a key driver of poverty and premature mortality. But
as essential as energy is to human development, the reality is that all
forms of energy production have environmental consequences. There is no
single-source supply that can provide the benefits we need at the scale
at which we need it without disturbing the natural world. Therefore, it
is necessary to weigh the relative environmental footprint of various
fuels against their relative availability, cost and reliability.
Meeting the rising requirements for energy worldwide is immutably hard to achieve. Globally, we used roughly the equivalent of 113,900 terawatt hours of fossil energy to fuel economic activity, human mobility and global telecommunications, among other modern-day activities, over the past decade. Replacing those terawatt hours with non-fossil energy would be the equivalent of constructing another 6,020 nuclear plants across the globe, or 14 times the number of nuclear power plants in the world today. Not only is it virtually impossible to convert to renewable energy today (and probably even in the next decade or two), but also to do so will still have substantial impacts on land use, mining pollution, waste streams and ecosystems. In short, we are going to use fuel and that fuel is going to have environmental impacts. Thus, our choices have to weigh environmental impacts against the economic and social benefits of current supply availability.
Shale gas provides a new opportunity to meet rising global energy requirements. Before the emergence of shale gas as a major new source of energy supply in the mid to late 2000s, energy prices were rising sharply worldwide and analysts were anticipating such severe shortages that energy scarcity was frequently cited as a future driver of global conflict. The petro-power of exporting countries such as Russia and Iran was on the rise, and mounting energy bills were serving as a brake on economic growth and poverty alleviation.
Virtually overnight, the shale gas revolution has reversed these global energy scarcity woes. Shale gas has already emerged as a major new source of energy in North America. Shale gas production in the United States has increased from virtually nothing in 2000 to more than 10 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) in 2010. It could more than quadruple by 2040, accounting for well over 50% of total US natural-gas production over the next two decades. Similar gains are being found in Canada, and promising shale resources are being investigated now in Australia, Argentina, South Africa and China, to name a few of the more promising locations.
The geopolitical benefits of shale are already apparent. American shale gas is playing a key role in weakening Russia’s ability to use energy as a weapon against its European customers. By significantly reducing America’s requirements for imported liquefied natural gas (LNG), rising shale gas production has increased alternative LNG supplies to Europe in the form of LNG displaced from the American market. It has also eliminated the need for natural-gas exports from Iran, removing Iran’s ability to use energy diplomacy as a means to strengthen its regional power or to buttress its nuclear aspirations. Shale gas will also ease American and Chinese dependence on Middle Eastern natural-gas supplies, limiting the incentives for geopolitical and commercial competition between the two largest consuming countries and providing both with new opportunities to diversify their energy supply away from coal—whose carbon footprint, air particulate and mercury pollution, and water use burdens are far higher than those of natural gas.
The benefits of shale gas unique to the American economy will also be multi-fold. Citibank estimates that rising domestic shale oil and gas production, by reducing oil imports and keeping “petro-dollars” inside the economy, will reduce the current-account deficit by 1.2-2.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) from the current value of 3% of GDP, strengthening the dollar and fuelling jobs and economic growth.
The combination of hydraulic fracturing and flexible, horizontal drilling technologies has enabled the production of this supplemental oil and gas from shale formations. Hydraulic fracturing is not new—it is a technique used in many different geologic methods of oil and gas extraction. The potential environmental impacts now linked to hydraulic fracturing are not unique to shale gas production and have been managed in many other energy-related production activities. Waste-water disposal issues plague almost all energy production and not just shale gas production. A certain percentage of gasoline stations, for example, routinely suffer leaks that leach benzene into water supply, but no one is proposing we ban automobile use. Methane release manifests itself in many forms of energy production and is probably easier and cheaper to recapture in shale production than in other competing fuels such as coal and oil. Thus, we support the proposition that the benefits derived from shale gas outweigh the drawbacks of fracking, which are as manageable as drawbacks to most other fuels currently in use.
Meeting the rising requirements for energy worldwide is immutably hard to achieve. Globally, we used roughly the equivalent of 113,900 terawatt hours of fossil energy to fuel economic activity, human mobility and global telecommunications, among other modern-day activities, over the past decade. Replacing those terawatt hours with non-fossil energy would be the equivalent of constructing another 6,020 nuclear plants across the globe, or 14 times the number of nuclear power plants in the world today. Not only is it virtually impossible to convert to renewable energy today (and probably even in the next decade or two), but also to do so will still have substantial impacts on land use, mining pollution, waste streams and ecosystems. In short, we are going to use fuel and that fuel is going to have environmental impacts. Thus, our choices have to weigh environmental impacts against the economic and social benefits of current supply availability.
Shale gas provides a new opportunity to meet rising global energy requirements. Before the emergence of shale gas as a major new source of energy supply in the mid to late 2000s, energy prices were rising sharply worldwide and analysts were anticipating such severe shortages that energy scarcity was frequently cited as a future driver of global conflict. The petro-power of exporting countries such as Russia and Iran was on the rise, and mounting energy bills were serving as a brake on economic growth and poverty alleviation.
Virtually overnight, the shale gas revolution has reversed these global energy scarcity woes. Shale gas has already emerged as a major new source of energy in North America. Shale gas production in the United States has increased from virtually nothing in 2000 to more than 10 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) in 2010. It could more than quadruple by 2040, accounting for well over 50% of total US natural-gas production over the next two decades. Similar gains are being found in Canada, and promising shale resources are being investigated now in Australia, Argentina, South Africa and China, to name a few of the more promising locations.
The geopolitical benefits of shale are already apparent. American shale gas is playing a key role in weakening Russia’s ability to use energy as a weapon against its European customers. By significantly reducing America’s requirements for imported liquefied natural gas (LNG), rising shale gas production has increased alternative LNG supplies to Europe in the form of LNG displaced from the American market. It has also eliminated the need for natural-gas exports from Iran, removing Iran’s ability to use energy diplomacy as a means to strengthen its regional power or to buttress its nuclear aspirations. Shale gas will also ease American and Chinese dependence on Middle Eastern natural-gas supplies, limiting the incentives for geopolitical and commercial competition between the two largest consuming countries and providing both with new opportunities to diversify their energy supply away from coal—whose carbon footprint, air particulate and mercury pollution, and water use burdens are far higher than those of natural gas.
The benefits of shale gas unique to the American economy will also be multi-fold. Citibank estimates that rising domestic shale oil and gas production, by reducing oil imports and keeping “petro-dollars” inside the economy, will reduce the current-account deficit by 1.2-2.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) from the current value of 3% of GDP, strengthening the dollar and fuelling jobs and economic growth.
The combination of hydraulic fracturing and flexible, horizontal drilling technologies has enabled the production of this supplemental oil and gas from shale formations. Hydraulic fracturing is not new—it is a technique used in many different geologic methods of oil and gas extraction. The potential environmental impacts now linked to hydraulic fracturing are not unique to shale gas production and have been managed in many other energy-related production activities. Waste-water disposal issues plague almost all energy production and not just shale gas production. A certain percentage of gasoline stations, for example, routinely suffer leaks that leach benzene into water supply, but no one is proposing we ban automobile use. Methane release manifests itself in many forms of energy production and is probably easier and cheaper to recapture in shale production than in other competing fuels such as coal and oil. Thus, we support the proposition that the benefits derived from shale gas outweigh the drawbacks of fracking, which are as manageable as drawbacks to most other fuels currently in use.
The opposition's opening remarks
Feb 5th 2013 | Michael Brune
The greatest thing since sliced bread.
That's what fracking for shale gas was supposed to be, just a few short years ago. The story was that natural gas was the ideal "bridge fuel". It had half the emissions of coal, and fracking would help America put dirty coal and oil in the rear-view mirror. Gas executives promised that fracking would help rural communities, create jobs, cut carbon pollution and pose no threat to people's air and water quality. Several years later, however, very little of this has turned out to be true.
What is true is that fracking has made shale gas plentiful to a degree that was unimaginable just five years ago. It's also only fair to acknowledge that jobs have been created, many of them in communities that were desperate for diversified income sources. But the climate impact of natural gas (and shale gas in particular) has come under scrutiny; the air and water risks are much greater than thought; rural landscapes are being rapidly industrialised; and for every unit of energy produced there are still more jobs to be found in renewables than in gas. In short, fracking for shale gas is far from benign, and it could tilt America towards a much greater long-term dependence on this extreme fossil fuel. That would be a mistake for at least three reasons:
1. Fracking is an inherently risky drilling procedure that has been allowed to proliferate with little oversight. This much we do know: there is growing evidence that fracking can contaminate groundwater and that it causes significant air pollution. Thanks to natural-gas drilling, parts of rural Wyoming have smog worse than that of downtown Los Angeles. There is also the problem of tens of millions of barrels of toxic waste water that the process generates. A ProPublica review found that structural failures inside wells like the ones used to store toxic, and often radioactive, fracking waste are common. From late 2007 to late 2010, one in six deep injection wells examined had an integrity violation—more than 17,000 violations nationally.
Fracking currently enjoys exemptions from parts of at least seven major national statutes, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. If fracking is so safe, why can't the industry be held to the same standards as everyone else?
2. It is a common assertion that replacing coal with shale gas lowers greenhouse-gas emissions. Unfortunately, this assumption can no longer be trusted. The process of fracking itself, plus the alarming methane leakage rates found in America's extensive natural-gas transmission and distribution network, combine to make gas a far greater threat to climate stability than its proponents will admit. The Environmental Protection Agency's current Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks predicts leakage rates of only around 2.4%, and natural gas reaches parity with coal (depending on your assumptions about boiler efficiency) at around 3.2%. However, a range of studies in recent years have called into question the conventional wisdom about methane leakage. One of the most recent, from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research group, measured methane leakage rates from a Utah gas field at an astonishing 9%, and this didn't even include leakage from distribution and transmission.
3. Let's say we could somehow mitigate all the immediate risks and environmental impacts of fracking on our air and water. And let's say we could also solve all the diverse and confounding problems of fugitive methane emissions throughout the entire supply chain, so that gas—not in myth but in reality—had only half the carbon emissions of coal. Even then we're in trouble. We can't escape the fact that switching from one fossil fuel to another does not help us avoid serious and possibly irreversible climate disruption. The International Energy Agency estimates that in order to keep global warming under 2°C (which itself is a risky target considering the damage we've incurred with less than 0.9°C of warming thus far) we'll need to keep two-thirds of our known oil, gas and coal reserves underground. If we want to avoid catastrophic changes to our climate, we must not only move off coal and oil but also use as little shale gas as possible.
The good news is that we know how to do that. One model can be found in the Pacific North-west, which will become America's first coal-free region over the next several years. As the region moves off coal it is also aggressively pursuing efficiency upgrades and renewable energy, including one of the nation's largest wind farms at Shepherds Flat, Oregon. Nationally, we've doubled our wind power to 60 gigawatts (enough to power nearly 15m homes), and we generate five times more solar power than we did just four years ago. Iowa gets more than 20% of its power from wind. Soon, Colorado and California will be at 30% wind and solar. Meanwhile, we've barely scratched the surface of energy-efficiency gains in most of the country. If we expand our investments in efficiency, renewables and a smart power grid, our energy future looks bright—but only if we resist the temptation to overrely on shale gas as a short-term answer to our energy needs.
To increase our dependence on shale gas from fracking would be a dangerous detour from developing a responsible, sustainable energy policy. Natural gas is not a bridge; it's a gangplank to a destabilised climate and an impoverished economy. Let's get off it as quickly as we can.
This was taken from www.economist.com
The Results: 49% Agreed and 51% disagreed. What's your take?
Next time i will do it in point form for those who do not feel like a big read. However if you have any ideas for debate topics, email: anelisiwe.mizer.miza@gmail.com - I always love hearing from you.
Everything is Everything
That's what fracking for shale gas was supposed to be, just a few short years ago. The story was that natural gas was the ideal "bridge fuel". It had half the emissions of coal, and fracking would help America put dirty coal and oil in the rear-view mirror. Gas executives promised that fracking would help rural communities, create jobs, cut carbon pollution and pose no threat to people's air and water quality. Several years later, however, very little of this has turned out to be true.
What is true is that fracking has made shale gas plentiful to a degree that was unimaginable just five years ago. It's also only fair to acknowledge that jobs have been created, many of them in communities that were desperate for diversified income sources. But the climate impact of natural gas (and shale gas in particular) has come under scrutiny; the air and water risks are much greater than thought; rural landscapes are being rapidly industrialised; and for every unit of energy produced there are still more jobs to be found in renewables than in gas. In short, fracking for shale gas is far from benign, and it could tilt America towards a much greater long-term dependence on this extreme fossil fuel. That would be a mistake for at least three reasons:
1. Fracking is an inherently risky drilling procedure that has been allowed to proliferate with little oversight. This much we do know: there is growing evidence that fracking can contaminate groundwater and that it causes significant air pollution. Thanks to natural-gas drilling, parts of rural Wyoming have smog worse than that of downtown Los Angeles. There is also the problem of tens of millions of barrels of toxic waste water that the process generates. A ProPublica review found that structural failures inside wells like the ones used to store toxic, and often radioactive, fracking waste are common. From late 2007 to late 2010, one in six deep injection wells examined had an integrity violation—more than 17,000 violations nationally.
Fracking currently enjoys exemptions from parts of at least seven major national statutes, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. If fracking is so safe, why can't the industry be held to the same standards as everyone else?
2. It is a common assertion that replacing coal with shale gas lowers greenhouse-gas emissions. Unfortunately, this assumption can no longer be trusted. The process of fracking itself, plus the alarming methane leakage rates found in America's extensive natural-gas transmission and distribution network, combine to make gas a far greater threat to climate stability than its proponents will admit. The Environmental Protection Agency's current Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks predicts leakage rates of only around 2.4%, and natural gas reaches parity with coal (depending on your assumptions about boiler efficiency) at around 3.2%. However, a range of studies in recent years have called into question the conventional wisdom about methane leakage. One of the most recent, from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research group, measured methane leakage rates from a Utah gas field at an astonishing 9%, and this didn't even include leakage from distribution and transmission.
3. Let's say we could somehow mitigate all the immediate risks and environmental impacts of fracking on our air and water. And let's say we could also solve all the diverse and confounding problems of fugitive methane emissions throughout the entire supply chain, so that gas—not in myth but in reality—had only half the carbon emissions of coal. Even then we're in trouble. We can't escape the fact that switching from one fossil fuel to another does not help us avoid serious and possibly irreversible climate disruption. The International Energy Agency estimates that in order to keep global warming under 2°C (which itself is a risky target considering the damage we've incurred with less than 0.9°C of warming thus far) we'll need to keep two-thirds of our known oil, gas and coal reserves underground. If we want to avoid catastrophic changes to our climate, we must not only move off coal and oil but also use as little shale gas as possible.
The good news is that we know how to do that. One model can be found in the Pacific North-west, which will become America's first coal-free region over the next several years. As the region moves off coal it is also aggressively pursuing efficiency upgrades and renewable energy, including one of the nation's largest wind farms at Shepherds Flat, Oregon. Nationally, we've doubled our wind power to 60 gigawatts (enough to power nearly 15m homes), and we generate five times more solar power than we did just four years ago. Iowa gets more than 20% of its power from wind. Soon, Colorado and California will be at 30% wind and solar. Meanwhile, we've barely scratched the surface of energy-efficiency gains in most of the country. If we expand our investments in efficiency, renewables and a smart power grid, our energy future looks bright—but only if we resist the temptation to overrely on shale gas as a short-term answer to our energy needs.
To increase our dependence on shale gas from fracking would be a dangerous detour from developing a responsible, sustainable energy policy. Natural gas is not a bridge; it's a gangplank to a destabilised climate and an impoverished economy. Let's get off it as quickly as we can.
This was taken from www.economist.com
The Results: 49% Agreed and 51% disagreed. What's your take?
Next time i will do it in point form for those who do not feel like a big read. However if you have any ideas for debate topics, email: anelisiwe.mizer.miza@gmail.com - I always love hearing from you.
Everything is Everything
