McLaughlinDebatePaper1

Brendan McLaughlin Debate Paper #1 Should the US expand the drilling of natural gas? Words: 1566

In the early days of oil extraction and development, before we hit peak oil or even knew that our supply was limited, prospectors noticed odd reservoirs of naturally occurring, flammable gas. At the time, this resource’s potential for use was mostly ignored and it was seen as little more than a nuisance that came along with drilling for the real gold, oil. Natural gas was difficult to transport then, requiring large pipelines with costs not justified by the value of the resource they would carry. While natural gas saw use for lighting and heating, it was mostly overtaken by oil and coal. However, recently, natural gas has risen in prominence. Aided by new technology such as liquid transport systems and hydraulic fracturing, natural gas has seen increases in both production and usefulness. With these new technologies, the benefits of natural gas over oil and coal began to really show. Natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels and produces energy more efficiently. While our country has in the past relied on relatively unstable foreign countries for oil, natural gas is plentiful all over the United States, which makes it much safer and constant while also keeping the price of transportation down. A plethora of smaller companies dominate the natural gas industry alongside a few larger ones, with 92% of these companies belonging to the American Gas Association. The AGA is a trade organization to aid the cause of the natural gas companies. The AGA and these companies are seeking the expansion of natural gas drilling, which is at the moment a very controversial issue. Much of the controversy stems from the environmental havoc that natural gas drilling operations are claimed to cause. Of particular interest to those against this expansion is the recently advancement in drilling known as hydraulic fracturing, which is said to cause incredible amounts of water pollution. Colloquially known as “fracking”, hydraulic fracturing is one of the most divisive issues concerning natural gas in America today. In addition to the pollution problem, natural gas is still a highly flammable fossil fuel, which causes another branch of problems stemming from both occupational and civilian hazards. If not properly maintained, natural gas has the potential to combust and cause injuries and even death. Do these safety concerns outweigh the sparkling potential of a homegrown, plentiful, efficient fossil fuel? Is natural gas so much better than oil and coal that it merits more expendable resource indulgence and less development of renewable fuels? Despite natural gas’s questionable environmental record, what are not being questioned are the obvious financial and security reasons behind this recent explosion of activity. From a financial standpoint, natural gas is both more plentiful and more efficient than oil or coal, and current technology allows cheap and easy transport to any point in America. From a national security standpoint, our reliance on unstable sources foreign oil could be stopped, which would allow us not to be the subject of any crises that may emerge in the oil producing countries in the future. The gas lines of the seventies have not been forgotten and the relief of having more domestically produced energy instead of foreign oil allows us to maintain stability in the event of our oil supply being cut off. These arguments are all backed up by Professor H. Swint Friday of Texas A&M in his article //Natural gas is good for Texas and the Environment//. Swint also brings up the point that, while natural gas may not be proven to be environmentally friendly, it surely has better environmental effects than oil or coal has. Swint was also very interested in the national security prospect for natural gas, remarking that “ nearly 35 percent of our imported oil comes from Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola and Iraq, all with security issues.” Can we rely on these unstable countries to continually feed our addiction to oil? Swint also brings up T. Boone Pickens, a controversial and powerful energy tycoon. Pickens currently supports increased natural gas drilling, and uses similar energy independence issues to gather support. But is this independence worth the environmental damage? The major flaw in Swint’s argument is his complete lack of an answer for the environmental damage natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing can cause. He merely discusses oil’s detrimental effects without even considering that natural gas drilling may have similar or even worse effects. The fact that he starts out with an argument against oil by immediately equating it with the Deepwater Horizon disaster is a little manipulative, as it adds a distinct emotional pressure into what is mainly a financial argument, which may sway the audience unfairly. One could even argue that increased natural gas drilling could cause an equal or greater disaster, were it as ubiquitous as oil drilling. Despite the obvious financial benefits, there has been increasing outcry from environmental groups and those directly affected by fracking efforts in their areas. As Abrahm Lustgarten argues in his article for //Scientific American//, the process of drilling for natural gas causes incredible health and safety risks, which the companies who supposedly do this manage to escape all culpability. Lustgarten uses many environmental situations to argue his point, bringing up stories about people who have been hospitalized or who had their houses blown up by natural gas disturbances. Of particular focus is Sublette County in Wyoming. Sublette is a major gas producing county with few if any other industries. There, the benzene pollution is off the charts, showing the detrimental effects gas drilling has on the environment without allowing the industry to shift blame to other industry. He also confronts the political side of the debate, particularly in exposing how the natural gas companies played the system for most of the last decade. For his closing points, Lustgarten offers some hope in the political/regulatory realm, before finally ending on bitter note on the fact that the drilling companies will not surrender anytime soon. It was difficult to find problems with Lustgarten’s argument, as it was quite thorough and effective. However, I did find that he may have relied too heavily on anecdotal evidence. While the anecdotes were nice and offered some emotional investment to the reader, too much anecdotal evidence can make an argument appear unsubstantiated. The article also did not seem as neatly organized as it could have been, and a reader may not like Lustgarten’s somewhat jumbled structure. This organizational mishap does not apply to the introduction and conclusion as much as it does to the body. The article also seemed a little too slanted at times, and seemed a little too eager to paint Halliburton and others as evil entities bent on poisoning people with their hydraulic fracturing. Overall though, it was an effective argument. The third article, “//Is Natural Gas Good, or Just Less Bad?”// from the New York Times, offers a working summary of the arguments from both sides. It argues that natural gas, while being better than coal or oil and it may be an effective bridge to renewable energy for now, still causes environmental damage and still may quickly end up like oil after its peak. The article helps clarify the arguments from the previous articles, showing both the financial and environmental effects and also providing more insight into how those effects may turn out. It is particularly balanced in that rather than taking a side for one part of the article and the other for the rest, the article is written such that every short term or long term goal from either side is immediately compared to a problem from the other side. From my perspective, I can see the obvious financial and somewhat environmental gains generated by a switch to natural gas. I’m also completely in support of having an energy independent country, as relying on conflict hotspots is never the easiest way to get needed, consistent resources. However, as long as the policy of fracking with the current level of oversight remains, I cannot support the expansion of natural gas drilling. The dangers and costs to the population are too high, especially when the drilling companies are usually always able to deflect blame onto some other cause rather than accept responsibility. One of the more defining moments for this came during my research, when I came across supposed refutations of //GasLand//, and why it was some horrid exploitative movie. The one argument they had was that one household during one segment in Colorado was later shown to not have their problems, flammable tap water, caused by fracking methane but by naturally occurring biological methane. As if refuting one scene could make the entire movie disappear. Fracking just causes too many real problems to make natural gas an acceptable source of energy. However, oil and coal are little better, so it would be unwise to abandon the idea of using natural gas altogether. There is truth in the statement that natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels and would be a decent replacement or stepping stone to renewable energy. Thus, what I would suggest should get priority in this situation would not be a replacement of natural gas but simply finding an alternative to fracking. There has to be another way of retrieving he gas from the ground, one that doesn’t involve millions of gallons of water and horrific environmental damage. Maybe Halliburton could work on that with their money instead of lobbying congress.

Works Cited

Friday, H. Swint. “Natural Gas is Good for Texas and the Environment” 2 Jul. 2010. 

Gardiner, Beth. “Is Natural Gas Good, or Just Less Bad?” The New York Times. 22 Feb. 2011. 

Lustgarten, Abrahm. “Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute Water” Scientific American. 17 Nov. 2008. 