SchneiderDebatePaper1

Bobby Schneider Debate Paper #1 Should the US expand natural gas drilling? Word Count: 2,099

The world is full of natural resources, one of which is natural gas, which used to be seen as nothing more than a byproduct of oil productions. Going back to ancient times, natural gas played a large role in superstitions and myths because when lighting would strike the ground where this gas was escaping, the air seemed to spontaneously ignite into a tower of flames, leading the locals to believe that these areas were of divine importance. It was not until 1785 that natural gas was first extracted from coal (not yet the ground) by Britain for use in lighting streets and homes and then it was introduced to the United States in 1816. Since these first discoveries, natural gas has vastly expanded in its uses ranging from heating and washing, to cooking, lighting, and electric. Some of the many stakeholders in this industry are the natural gas drilling companies (of course), heating companies that install natural gas-based appliances, some electric companies, and people who currently rely on the resource for cooking, showering, and warming their homes. Companies that build underground distribution pipelines to bring resources such as natural gas to homes, offices, and buildings are also important stakeholders. This clear and unscented source of power, comprised of primarily methane, ethane, propane, butane, and carbon dioxide, can provide a high quantity of energy while releasing a low quantity of emissions. However, the process involved with drilling for this gas can lead to the destruction of underground wells, as well as water contamination, illness, explosions, and even death. The question which must be answered is although natural gas has its flaws and downsides, do the benefits that it can provide outweigh the problems that it can cause?

Many people, including some scientists, strongly believe in a future full of natural gas. Sask Energy produced a list of reasons as to why natural gas is the resource of tomorrow in a brief article called “Top Ten Benefits of Natural Gas.” As if being one of the world’s most safe and eco-friendly sources of energy was not enough, natural gas is also fairly cheap, as well as domestic, which can help to end our current reliance on the supply of foreign oil (page 1). Furthermore, natural gas distribution systems will function beneath the surface, thus protecting the pipes and materials from harm in the event of a severe storm or other problems. One of the best reasons natural gas is being considered for use is for its wide range of uses and purposes. For example, not only can it be used for cleaning, washing, and indoor heating, such as fireplaces, but it can also be utilized in cooking and lighting as well (page 1). By implementing more natural gas equipment in one’s home, which is relatively inexpensive to maintain due to natural gas’s ability to burn cleanly, a person can also increase his or her property and house value (page 1). Being so safe, reliable, amply available, cheap, and valuable, natural gas seems to be the perfect solution to America’s, as well as the world’s energy needs. Unfortunately, sometimes everything is not what it seems.

While without a doubt natural gas has the potential to be the next big energy resource, those who are optimistic about it, such as Sask Energy, tend to ignore the flaws and problems that can accompany its usage. The fact that this document claims that natural gas is extremely safe and raises house market value is absurd. Being odorless and colorless, this gas, which is unhealthy to breathe and highly flammable, is undetectable to humans. While yes, it may seem that natural gas appliances might increase home value, how valuable will a home be after an unknown gas leak causes a fire or explosion? The document mention anything about the fracking process used to acquire the gas, which can also damage fresh water supplies, making the water both unhealthy and flammable (just like a house). Number five on this list states that natural gas is in a “consistent, reliable supply,” which is not the case at all. Unfortunately, like many other things, natural gas is a finite resource with a limited amount to go around. In addition, as the gases are extracted from the earth, this leaves large, now empty holes beneath the surface which could easily collapse. Although natural gas would in fact be fairly cheap to maintain and use in the long run, in order to get the initial distribution up and running an intricate pipeline system must first be installed underground, which can be extremely costly. Some may say, “Well even if there are some flaws with natural gas, at least it is domestic,” but those people do not realize how unpleasant life would be for Americans if we used this domestic resource. Since natural gas, much like oil, is not centralized in one distinct area, thousands upon thousands of wells will have to be installed, some within your state, some within your community, and perhaps even some on one’s own front lawn. Think the government cannot do that? Well, it can; it has the power of eminent domain on its side. Is this what people want the world to come to: A life full of fearing gas leaks and fires, illnesses, and endless fights to protect our property from government intrusions?

Despite the numerous benefits that natural gas offers, there are still others who strongly oppose the use of natural gas as a source of energy, and for good reasons. Rachel Cernansky wrote an article with the headline “Natural Gas Drilling Harms Eyes, Causes Tumors, Destroys Air: The Ugly Truth Behind the ‘Natural’ Energy Source,” in which she explained the problems associated with natural gas. She opens by explaining that since the gas industry is excused from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act it is free to use any chemicals and techniques that it pleases, while also avoiding being blamed for any contamination or environmental damage that results (page 1). The fracking chemicals, which include mercury, hydrocarbons, arsenic, benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and especially a chemical known as 2-BE, have led to a variety of health concerns. Capable of dissolving red bloods cells within the body, this chemical, 2-BE, is also associated with liver, eye, and bone marrow damage, as well as kidney failure, cancer, anemia, and tail necrosis in some animals that were tested with it (page 1, 2). If the fracking process cracks a water well, which has happened, any and all of these chemicals can enter the water supply, meaning innocent people will be drinking, washing, and bathing in tainted water. Cernansky feels that tighter regulations are needed and more careful research must be completed in selecting where to drill, how to drill, and what chemicals to use and the industry should be included in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act (page 2). By making these fairly basic changes, the drilling process could be safer, more environmentally-friendly, and people’s lives could be saved. She believes that “safe drinking water shouldn’t be something that we have to fight oil [and gas] companies, let alone Washington, for" (page 2).

Though clearly the fight against natural gas has some strong points, this article has a few flaws which question its reliability and credibility. In the opening paragraph Cernansky clearly states that the oil and gas industries were getting away with not having to “disclose the types or amounts of chemicals used while drilling.” However, within the next two paragraphs she discusses the effects of certain chemicals, such as 2-BE and lists many more including arsenic and benzene. If the industry did not reveal the types of chemicals used then how did Cernansky know what they were? Even if the scientist she mentioned, Theo Colborn, were to run tests on the chemicals, how did she acquire them? Were her actions legal? The illnesses reportedly associated with the gas chemicals are, overall, an unsuitable argument as well. Though some of these fracking chemicals absolutely could cause health damages, just about everything in today’s society has its pros and cons regarding health. Think about it: not too long ago there had been concern that milk, a great source of calcium to help strengthen bones, could cause cancer. Nowadays it seems that water is practically the only “pure” and risk-free thing left on the planet. With this being said, it is very possible that many other factors could be playing into the development of disease and illness and the increases of these illnesses around gas drilling wells is mere coincidence. If Cernansky wants to complain about deaths being caused by an energy resource then she should look further into the Iraq War, which is helping to ensure the continuous flow of oil to America. If she does not want people dying from energy exploration then she //should// let natural gas become a major energy supplier so that less men and women will die fighting for oil overseas. Though both have risks involved, at least natural gas is only a domestic (and much less frequent) risk, as opposed to a foreign and extremely painful risk that soldiers must confront on a daily basis.

These two positions on natural gas, supporting and opposing, of course clash when brought together. In an article by Sourabh Gupta, entitled “Advantages and Disadvantages of Natural Gas,” the pros and cons are balanced simultaneously. While it is evident that natural gas is fairly cheap to extract and extremely eco-friendly, emitting “30% less carbon dioxide than burning oil and 45% less carbon dioxide than burning coal,” it is also a “highly volatile” gas which is virtually undetectable by humans, thus posing both health and safety concerns should there be a leak anywhere (page 1, 2). Furthermore, although an argument can be made that mankind’s use of natural gas fields are “underutilized,” one must also keep in mind that as this compressed natural gas (CNG) continues to be removed, this “leaves out large [unsafe] craters within the earth" (page 1, 2). The dilemma in this article provides a strong basis for main arguments that can relate to this essay as a whole: Is improving the air quality above us worth destroying the interior of the earth below us? Is improving environmental health worth risking human health and safety? Perhaps the first question which needs to be asked is more along the lines of how much are we, as humans, willing to sacrifice and what risks are we actually willing to take in the energy game?

In my opinion, while natural gas undoubtedly has the potential to become one of the world’s next big energy resources, advancements must first be made, especially in the fracking process. Though I am glad that this resource produces less smog, pollutants, and emissions, the increased chances of water contamination, explosion, and death make me slightly uneasy about its use nationwide. No form of energy, no matter how beneficial, is worth putting human life at risk. The fracking, aside from damaging and tainting water wells, might also lead to landslides or earthquakes as a result of both the displacement of land and from leaving empty space after extracting the gases. Without question, the top priority is to implement tighter regulations and safety guidelines for the drilling and extracting processes before things get out of hand. This includes using new, more human-friendly and eco-friendly chemicals, conducting more thorough research for where to drill, and establishing more strict rules regarding the disposal of waste products. If I had to respond to the question as to whether or not we should use natural gas more expansively in a simple statement, my answer would be: Yes, just not right now.

Although it is doubtful that there is a perfect and flawless energy source that can solve all of our problems, at this point in time any energy-efficient and eco-friendly advancement made is better than where we currently stand on the green energy issue. As the Age of Oil comes to a close, perhaps there will in fact be enough initiative for the Age of Natural Gas to begin. However, much like oil, natural gas is a fossil fuel that appears to be in limited supply and it is unknown just how long this resource will last the human race before it disappears and the dawn of a new age must begin.

Works Cited

Cernansky, Rachel. “Natural Gas Drilling Harms Eyes, Causes Tumors, Destroys Air: The Ugly Truth Behind the ‘Natural’ Energy Source.” __Planet Green__. 15 Oct. 2009. < [] >.

Gupta, Sourabh. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Natural Gas.” __Buzzle__. 2011. < [] >.

“Top Ten Benefits of Natural Gas.” __SaskEnergy__. < [] >.