Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Case Study
Roselle Marie D. Azucena, MAN,MBA
Case Abstract:
Hydraulic fracturing (also hydrofracturing, hydrofracking, fracking or fraccing) is a
well-stimulation technique in which rock is fractured by a pressurized liquid. The
process involves the high-pressure injection of 'fracking fluid' (primarily water, containing
sand and other proppants suspended with the aid of gelling agents) into a wellbore to
create cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas, petroleum, and
brine will flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small
grains of hydraulic fracturing proppants (either sand or aluminium oxide) hold the
fractures open.[1]
Hydraulic fracturing began as an experiment in 1947, and the first commercially
successful application followed in 1950. As of 2012, 2.5 million "frac jobs" had been
performed worldwide on oil and gas wells; over one million of those within the U.S. [2][3]
Such treatment is generally necessary to achieve adequate flow rates in shale gas, tight
gas, tight oil, and coal seam gas wells.[4] Some hydraulic fractures can form naturally in
certain veins or dikes.[5]
Hydraulic fracturing is highly controversial in many countries. Its proponents advocate
the economic benefits of more extensively accessible hydrocarbons.[6][7] However
opponents argue that these are out-weighed by the environmental impacts, which
include the risks of contaminating ground and surface water; causing air and noise
pollution and potentially triggering earthquakes, along with the consequential hazards to
public health and the environment.[8][9]
The following are the enumerated reason going for Fracking:
Below are the arguments and synthesized evidence on some key issues, based on the
available research literature and conversations with diverse experts.
Air quality, health, and the energy menu
ISSUE: The new supply of natural gas reachable by fracking is now changing the
overall picture for U.S. electricity generation, with consequences for air quality.
PRO FRACKING: Increasing reliance on natural gas, rather than coal, is indisputably
creating widespread public health benefits, as the burning of natural gas produces fewer
harmful particles in the air. The major new supply of natural gas produced through
fracking is displacing the burning of coal, which each year contributes to the early death
of thousands of people. Coal made up about 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation in
2008, 37 percent by 2012; meanwhile, natural gas went from about 20 percent to about
30 percent during that same period. In particular, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide
emissions have been reduced dramatically. Fracking saves lives, and it saves them
right now and not at some indiscernible date well into the future.
CON FRACKING: First, it is not the case that a new natural gas facility coming online
always replaces a legacy coal-fired power plant. It may displace coal in West Virginia or
North Carolina, but less so in Texas and across the West. So fracking is no sure bet for
improving regional air quality. Second, air quality dynamics around fracking operations
are not fully understood, and cumulative health impacts of fracking for nearby residents
and workers remain largely unknown. Some of the available research evidence from
places such as Utah and Colorado suggests there may be under-appreciated problems
with air quality, particularly relating to ozone. Further, natural gas is not a purely clean
and renewable source of energy, and so its benefits are only relative. It is not the
answer to truly cleaning up our air, and in fact could give pause to a much-needed and
well thought-out transition to wind, solar, geothermal, and other sources that produce
fewer or no harmful airborne fine particulates.
thats just a matter of making sure that the steel tubing, the casing, is not leaking and
that the cement around it doesnt have cracks. Certain geologies, such as those in
Pennsylvanias Marcellus Shale region, do require more care; but research has found
that between 2008 and 2011, only a handful of major incidents happened across more
than 3,500 wells in the Marcellus. We are learning and getting better. So this is a
technical, well-integrity issue, not a deal-breaker. As for the flammable water, it is a fact
that flammable water was a reality 100 years ago in some of these areas. It can be
made slightly worse in a minority of cases, but its unlikely and it is often the result of
leaks from activities other than fracking. In terms of disclosure, many of the chemicals
are listed on data sheets available to first-responders: The information is disclosed to
relevant authorities.
CON FRACKING: This April, yet another major study, published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, confirmed that high-volume hydraulic fracturing
techniques can contaminate drinking water. There have been numerous reports by
citizens across the country of fouled tap water; it is a fact that some of the tap water has
even turned bubbly and flammable, as a result of increased methane. Well blowouts
have happened, and they are a complete hazard to the environment. The companies
involved cannot be trusted, and roughly one in five chemicals involved in the fracking
process are still classified as trade secrets. Even well-meaning disclosure efforts such
as FracFocus.org do not provide sufficient information. And we know that there are
many who cut corners out in the field, no matter the federal or state regulations we try to
impose. They already receive dozens of violation notices at sites, with little effect. Weve
created a Gold Rush/Wild West situation by green-lighting all of this drilling, and in the
face of these economic incentives, enforcement has little impact.
Infrastructure, resources, and communities
ISSUE: Fracking operations are sometimes taking place near and around populated
areas, with consequences for the local built and natural environments.
PRO FRACKING: Water intensity is lower for fracking than other fossil fuels and
nuclear: Coal, nuclear and oil extraction use approximately two, three, and 10 times,
respectively, as much water as fracking per energy unit, and corn ethanol may use
1,000 times more if the plants are irrigated. For communities, the optics, aesthetics, and
quality of life issues are real, but its worth remembering that drilling operations and rigs
dont go on forever its not like putting up a permanent heavy manufacturing facility.
The operations are targeted and finite, and the productivity of wells is steadily rising,
getting more value during operations. Moreover, the overall societal benefits outweigh
the downsides, which are largely subjective in this respect.
CON FRACKING: More than 15 million Americans have had a fracking operation within
a mile of their home. Still, that means that a small proportion of people shoulder the
burden and downsides, with no real compensation for this intrusive new industrial
presence. Fracking is hugely water-intensive: A well can require anywhere from two- to
20-million gallons of water, with another 25 percent used for operations such as drilling
and extraction. It can impact local water sources. The big, heavy trucks beat up our
roads over hundreds of trips back-and-forth with well-documented consequences for
local budgets and infrastructure. In places such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado,
the drilling rigs have popped up near where people have their homes, diminishing the
quality of life and creating an industrial feel to some of our communities. This is poor
planning at best, and sheer greed at its worst. It seldom involves the preferences of the
local residents.
Finally, its also the case that relatively low impact fees are being charged and relatively
little funding is being set aside to mitigate future problems as wells age and further
clean-up is necessary. It is the opposite of a sustainable solution, as well production
tends to drop sharply after initial fracking. Within just five years, wells may produce just
10 percent of what they did in the first month of operation. In short order, were likely to
have tens of thousands of sealed and abandoned wells all over the U.S. landscape,
many of which will need to be monitored, reinforced, and maintained. It is a giant
unfunded scheme.
Drainage water pours into a settling pond near the booming oil fields of the MidlandOdessa region of West Texas.
D. Treating Wastewater: At hydraulic fracturing sites, the amount of wastewater
typically far exceeds the amount of oil produced. The fluid that returns to the surface
through the well bore is not only the chemically treated frack water, but water from the
rock formation that can contains brines, metals, and radionuclides. (See related,
"Forcing Gas Out of Rock With Water.") That wastewater must be captured and stored
on site, and then often is shipped long distances to deep well injection underground
storage facilities. There have been few treatment options. But Halliburton has
developed the Clean Wave treatment system, which uses positively charged ions and
bubbles to remove particles from the water at the fracking site. Last September, GE and
its partner Memsys also tested a new on-site treatment system that allows the water to
be reused without being diluted with freshwater, by employing a desalination process
called membrane distillation. (See related Quiz: What You Don't Know About Water and
Energy.
E. Plugging Methane Leaks: A major fracking concern has been whether companies
are allowing a significant amount of natural gas to escape, because methanethe main
component of natural gasis a potent greenhouse gas, 34 times stronger than carbon
dioxide (CO2). A recent study concluded U.S. methane emissions are likely 50 percent
higher than official government estimates. (See related, "Methane Emissions Far Worse
Than U.S. Estimates.") New U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that go
into effect next year will require that all U.S. oil and gas sites have equipment designed
to cut a wide range of pollutants, a step that the agency expects will cut methane. (See
related, "Air Pollution From Fracked Wells Will Be Regulated Under New U.S. Rules.")
Methane emissions from onshore oil and natural gas production could be reduced by 40
percent by 2018, at a cost that's the equivalent of just one cent per thousand cubic feet
of natural gas produced, concludes a just-released study, conducted by Fairfax, Va.based consulting firm ICF International for the Environmental Defense Fund. EDF's
Ratner said that inspectors equipped with infrared cameras can spot leaks at fracking
sites, which can then be plugged. "The cameras cost about $80,000 to $100,000
apiece," he noted. "But that can pay for itself, because the more leaks you fix, the more
gas you have to sell." (See related blog post: "Simple Fixes Could Plug Methane Leaks
From Energy Industry, Study Finds.")
Another improvement that can reduce methane emissions: Replacing conventional
pressure-monitoring pneumatic controllers, which are driven by gas pressure and vent
gas when they operate. A U.S.-wide move to lower-bleed designs could reduce
emissions by 35 billion cubic feet annually. And switching out conventional chemical
injection pumps used in the fracking process, which are powered by gas pressure from
the wells, and replacing them with solar-powered pumps, operators could eliminate an
5.9 billion cubic feet of methane emissions annually, the EDF report concludes.
The Cost-Benefit Equation
Some solutions do not require advanced technology. A study released Wednesday by
the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force suggests that almost all of the methane leaks
from the oil and gas infrastructure could be reduced at relatively little expense, often by
simply tightening bolts or replacing worn seals.
A number of greener fracking technologies already are being implemented, according to
industry officials. But one obstacle is economic. The newer, more environmentally
friendly technologies generally cost more than the legacy equipment they would
replace. Extracting natural gas with water-free fracking, for example, could cost 25
3.Oil:
Oil is the most precious and least abundant of the world's fossil fuels. Never-the-less
the amount of Oil on the Earth is likely at least the range of several trillion barrels of Oil
once non-conventional sources of Oil are considered. These include the Heavy Oil
deposits of South America, the Oil sands of Western Canada and shale Oil found
throughout the World. In addition as the price of Oil increases, previously abandoned
fields become economic to re-extract. Consequently despite constantly increasing Oil
production throughout the world, there is likely at least a century of usable Oil available
in the world. A more useful question is: At what price will petroleum and gasoline be
widely displaced as the fuel of choice for transport? It has already been largely
displaced as a fuel for Electricity.
4.Coal
Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel. It is found throughout the world and current
proven reserves are sufficient for at least 300 years of exploitation. Although coal is
cheap, it is dangerous to mine (thousands of miners die every year all over the world)
and is bulky and expensive to transport. Because coal has relatively low energy content
for its weight, a lot of it is required to produce a given amount of electricity. For example,
A 1000 MW coal power station requires about 8,600,000 kg of coal per day, compared
to 74 kg per day of uranium for the equivalent sized nuclear power plant. In addition
coal-based power plants produce vast amounts of pollutants, including radioactivity, in
addition to the C02 emissions which contribute to global-warming.
5.Natural Gas
Natural Gas reserves are intermediate between Coal and Oil. It is currently the most
favoured fuel source for new electricity production with the USA. Natural gas combinedcycle generators can reach 60% efficiency for converting heat energy into electricity.
Natural gas also produces 40 -50 % fewer CO2 emissions for the same amount of
electricity generated as Coal. However the price of Natural Gas is steadily rising and the
costs associated with sequestration of the generated CO2 are not yet included in the
price of electricity passed on the consumer.
6. Nuclear Fission
The cost of Nuclear Fission Power is dominated by the capital cost of construction
of the plant. These reactors also have significant increases in Uranium efficiency and
substantial increases in operating life of the plant (60 years). In addition the proponents
claim a ten-fold increase in safety of operation over previous generation reactors.
Disposal of Nuclear Waste remains a topic of intense debate and controversy.
Nuclear Fission is currently unique in that the costs of decommissioning and waste
disposal are fully reflected in the price of the generated electricity.
The nuclear industry has longer-term plans to develop advanced reactors that are
over 50 times more efficient in their use of Uranium and which consume a large fraction
of the long-lived waste generated from current (2nd generation) reactors. In addition
these plants may also be used to efficiently produce Hydrogen for use as a
transportation fuel and to de-salinate sea water. These are the Fourth
Generation Nuclear Reactors and are not expected to be ready for deployment before
2020.
There is a large and very vocal opposition to Nuclear Fission power because of the
radioactive material produced in the process of generating energy and from Nuclear
Proliferation concerns. There are also claims that Nuclear Power is more
expensive than alternative energy generation schemes. There are also numerous
websites and a document that counter such claims and offer strong opinion that Nuclear
Power is the best energy option.
7.Nuclear Fusion
Nuclear Fusion is often proposed as the ultimate energy source. Great progress has
been made in this field in the 50 years since it was first proposed. Construction has
started for the next generation Fusion Test Reactor (the ITER). Its projected start date is
2016. It will be operated for the 10 years following to learn the about the Physics and
Engineering required to build and operate a commercially competitive Power Plant. It is
projected to produce 500 MegaWatts of energy at full power. However much research
and development still needs to be done on the project.
8. Solar
Solar energy has made significant progress and is displacing fossil fuel technologies
from many niche applications.
a. Solar Thermal
These are technologies that concentrate sunlight to produce intense heat or light. Many
significant technology hurdles have been overcome through ingenious design and the
use of advanced materials. Nevertheless despite many years of effort these
technologies produce electricity at far higher cost than coal-based production. The
exceptions are when these are located in sunlight rich regions with poor access of
Fossil Fuels or where the full cost of Fossil Fuels are passed on to the consumer. Solar
b. Solar PhotoVoltaics
days. Large-scale wind use requires capital to both build the wind-powered turbines and
backup facilities.
There is a vocal environmental opposition to Wind Power from those who oppose
the visual impact of wind-turbines on the landscape, its danger to bird life and noise.
There are numerous websites that counter such claims.
10.Biomass
Biomass projects utilize various biological processes to generate hydrocarbon fuels
like Methane Gas and Diesel fuel. Modern Biomass projects focus on methane gas from
refuse and biodiesel fuel from algae, plants and waste products.
There is intense, world-wide research into this energy source as Biodiesel could well
become cost competitive as the price of conventional Oil increases. There are
numerous hobbyists who create Biodiesel fuel for their own use.
However, presently available crops are rather inefficient at converting sunlight into
useful fuel which makes biomass unsuitable for large-scale electricity production.
11.Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy relies on converting heat trapped underground to generate
useful power. In most cases this means converting the heat to electricity via the same
techniques employed by Fossil Fuel power stations. There are in addition several
locations in the world where Geothermal energy is also used to provide district heating.
Geothermal has the advantage over Wind and Solar power of being available 24
hours a day.
CONCLUSIONS:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The use of Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) to Extract Natural Gas is more
Advantageous
Those living near fractured wells are potentially at risk of health threats given the
increased amount of volatile organic compounds and air toxins in the area. On the
flip side, when natural gas replaces, say coal as a fuel for generating electricity,
the benefits to air quality include lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal and
almost none of the mercury, sulfur dioxide or ash.
annual consumption. During the past three years, about 50 billion barrels of
additional recoverable oil have been found in shale oil deposits more than 20%
of the total conventional recoverable US oil resource. These tight oil resources,
which also require fracking to access, could generate 3 million barrels a day by
2020, offsetting one-third of current oil imports. International data arent as well
known, but the effect of fracking on global energy production will be huge.
Another point to raise going for Fracking is that Global warming is a serious issue
that fracking-related gas production can help to alleviate... Mankinds inexorable
march towards 9 billion people will require a broad portfolio of energy resources,
which
can
be
gained
only
with
breakthroughs
such
as
fracking...
References
1.
Luca Gandossi, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport
(2013). An overview of hydraulic fracturing and other formation stimulation
technologies for shale gas production (pdf). Scientific and Technical Research
series. (Report) (European Commission Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union). Retrieved 29 May 2015.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IEA (29 May 2012). Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas. World Energy
Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas (PDF). OECD. pp. 1827.
7.
Hillard Huntington et al. EMF 26: Changing the Game? Emissions and
Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies Report. Stanford University.
Energy Modeling Forum, 2013.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Patel, Tara (31 March 2011). "The French Public Says No to 'Le Fracking'
". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Citations:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/03/140319-5-technologies-forgreener-fracking/
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001732
http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/
http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/
http://scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/pros-and-cons-fracking
The Fracking Truth by Chris Faulkner (June 30, 2014, Platform Press)
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-fracking
Fracking: The pros and cons of the booming and controversial extraction process The
Center for Michigan | Bridge Magazine on May 20, 2014 at 2:05 PM, updated May 20,
2014 at 2:09 PM
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Aug. 18, 2011 report "Shale Gas Production
Subcommittee 90-Day Report" on shalegas.energy.gov