This column tries to asses briefly the costs and benefits of fracking and the international risks and implications of the technology.
With the price of crude oil on the rise, and many critical supply lines situated in or near conflict zones following the turn of the century, the world was ready and in anticipation for a new, readily available and cheap source of energy: hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” is a relatively new process, which extracts fossil fuels contained within geological formations by forcing fracking fluid, a water-based mixture of chemicals and sand deep underground. The resulting pressure causes cracks or fissures to form, along which natural gas or oil can flow into a pre-bored well. Often, a well can collect fuel from a radius of multiple kilometres. In many parts of the United States, especially those traditionally invested in energy production, which have been in economic decline recently, fracking has been adopted and hailed as a boon. It is being acknowledged for rejuvenating entire communities by providing jobs and has led to oil exports, and lower energy prices internationally. This has been welcomed by most nations recovering from the financial crises of the last decade.
However, evidence is mounting to suggest that this practice creates a collection of environmental hazards including surface water pollution and even increased earthquake frequency. There are also concerns s that the horizontal drilling necessary for cost-effective extraction leads to the contamination of the water table. Residents have complained of contaminated wells affecting their own water supply as well as the supply for their cattle or crops. While acknowledging that their findings may be inaccurate due to an insufficient amount of collected data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated that fracking does not contribute to wide-spread contamination and pollution, if done correctly. This conclusion was based on the fact that the number of cases in which claims of contaminated water were made, are relatively low to the amount of fracking wells being bored. However, digging wells and fracking has become so widespread that it is difficult to monitor and assess the situation or enforce safety measures. Especially in states such as North Dakota, which has seen economic developments in key areas, previously unimagined, the idea of threatening economic growth by curtailing fracking is proving politically unpalatable. Large business interests lobby local government to support the industry. The result internationally has been that different countries and localities have adopted the practice to varying degrees depending on their own cost benefit analyses. Do the potential environmental concerns outweigh the economic boons and renewals afforded?
Countries outside of the United States have begun to answer this question; some have begun to frack, while others have instituted laws banning the practice. If there are negative effects, they will influence more than just the local population; the international community as a whole could be indirectly affected. Moreover, effects could be permanent or difficult to assuage, suggesting that quick profits will incur long term unforeseen costs. Also, the costs and benefits may be unfairly distributed such that rural farmers are more negatively affected and ignored than urban populations. Moreover, countries not fracking may still benefit indirectly from lower energy prices while not incurring any of the potential environmental issues. Whether the practice of drilling contaminates the environment or not, it is clear that the practice of fracking will be unsustainable. In the long run, the final product is still energy in the form of a fossil fuel, which when combusted, produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. As such, it should be seen as a temporary economic band-aid and not a green solution for a sustainable future. Governments should be wary and skeptic of adopting the practice and if they do, they should ensure that the appropriate measures are taken to ensure public and environmental safety in order to mitigate associated risks and costs.
Niklas Zeller
