On 16 July 2014, the UNAI hosted a public conversation on fracking – or hydraulic fracturing. Held at UN Headquarters and organized by UNAI as part of its on-going series, CFR@UNAI, in association with the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, the meeting brought together two of the world’s leading voices on energy and sustainable development, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations and Elisabeth Thompson of the Secretary-General’s Sustainable Energy for All initiative.,
It was a spirited conversation. Both approached the issue vigilantly, presenting known scientific facts and environmental and economic analyses, pointing out the obvious economic gains, but also the serious environmental risks fracking poses.
Fracking involves drilling horizontally down to the sedimentary rocks, sometimes as far as several thousand feet, then drill sideways for a mile or longer. Shale gas is trapped in thin layers between the rocks and can't flow through the well by drilling alone. Producers deploy hydraulic fracturing, which pumps millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure to open fractures in the rocks and allow oil and gas to flow.
“Is fracking, by providing actual gas, giving us a cleaner energy source? The answer is yes, perhaps, if you regard natural gas as a cleaner energy source,” said Ms. Thompson. “However, if the methodologies used are dirty, or environmentally harmful, then some of the beneficial impacts are significantly eroded.”
On average, Ms. Thomas said, each well that is fracked uses up to 8 million gallons of water, and a fracking fluid of 40,000 gallons that uses some 600 volatile organized compounds. The concern is that the concoction can seep into under-ground water supplies, as well as water that is at the surface level when the brine is not properly disposed of.
There are also worries about air quality deteriorating because of how technologies are used and managed. The sudden shift underground, sometimes caused by explosives, has also been found to cause earthquakes. In addition to disposal of waste water from the wells and air quality, communities can have a negative reaction to the sudden, intensive industrial development.
Speaking with the UN News Centre, Mr. Levi explained the negative reaction happened most often in places that have not had that before and are not used to it, which has more to do with urban planning, education, and proper infrastructure, than with making sure people have the right valves and are monitoring the air quality properly.
“The telegenic risks are not necessarily the ones for policy makers to confront,” he said, referring to popular videos showing television reporters lighting on fire tap water seeped with methane gas. Methane is believed to be found in the same area as natural gas and brought to surface in the extraction process.
Ms. Thompson argued that in the US at the local level, there were insufficient regulations governing fracking. Hence, there was a clear need for further tightening of regulations. When poor methodologies are used, there remained the risk of air and noise pollution, and risk of contamination of surface and ground water, she cautioned.
Ms. Thompson compared fracking to a medicine that had obvious benefits, but also many side effects. She called for continued research on risks associated with fracking and for educating local communities about challenges they could face with fracking.
Mr. Levi argued that there were enough regulations; what was lacking was more rigorous enforcement of the existing regulations. Both Mr. Levi and Ms. Thomson agreed that further studies were needed to understand how fracking worked and more investment should be made to reduce environmental hazards. Later, in an interview with UN Radio, Ms. Thompson further discussed fracking and its environmental costs. Find more at http://bit.ly/WBbHA2