Gas+Explortation

Chris Knortz 3/28/11 Oil Politics Natural Gas Expansion The development of natural gas in the U.S. could be a valuable economic and political tool. However it could also destroy some of the nation’s natural beauty and endanger the health of many residents. The future of natural gas involves everyone in the nation. Further development could lower the dependence of foreign energy and provide and economical supply of energy. Also it could displace many people and destroy natural environments in unknown ways. Currently it only directly involves the people in close contact with the drilling rigs, they are feeling the immediate effects, but that could soon spread to other areas as more rigs are built and contamination spreads. As the use of natural gas increases it has the potential to affect many more millions of people, gas fields have been found in over 30 states across the nation. In the past natural gas has been a small percentage of the nation’s energy consumption because it has been relatively expensive when compare to oil and coal. As other energy prices increase the viability of natural gas will increase. This will expose the industry to further publicity as it has been relatively unnoticed in the past. Development will expose people who have previously not dealt with industry to intense industrial work in their areas. Many of the fields are located in areas with little industrial activity and the residents are not accustomed to such activity. There are many who support the development of natural gas production, one such person is Jack Ford from OilPrice.com, he has a history in the oil industry. In one of his articles he argues for the further development of natural gas production in this country, he gives reasons why it is to be a logical and necessary part of the energy future of the nation. The potential problems to ground water contamination are down played and ignored when he says that “ there are no documented cases of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing”. The environmental groups, that oppose gas development and the use of hydro fracking, are accused of not using science in their accusations. He does admit to the global warming problem. However he supports the use of further fossil fuel to reduce its effect. Using natural gas produces much less carbon dioxide compared to oil and coal. He appears to trust the industry in their practices and he believes the status quo of fossil fuel use can continue to bring this country prosperity. Some of these arguments made by Jack Ford are very close minded. He accuses the environmentalist opposing gas development, mostly hydro fracking, of not basing there accusations in science. When many of their accusations are based on first had experience over several years. This comes from people who have been exposed to this contamination for many years and are experiencing the health effects. Also he is very convinced that renewable energy will not play a large part in the energy industry for many years to come. Even with further development there will still be a large need for traditional energy. This is the status quo of the energy industry, people are reluctant to trust new unproven technologies and overlook the problems with the present system. He closes with a statement describing how the nation cannot afford to overlook natural gas and that it can be an environmentally friendly and inexpensive form of energy. This is the largest overstatement of the article. One thing this country cannot do is overlook the consequences of further extensive use of fossil fuel. There a large amount of evidence supporting the theory of global warming, also can the world afford to take the chance and assume that carbon does not change the environment. There are also many who oppose the development of natural gas in this country. One such person is Joanna Zelman, she writes for HuffingtonPost.com. Her article, “Mark Ruffalo’s Crusade Against Fracking: ‘The World is Leaving Us Behind’” she describes the struggle of Mark Ruffalo to spread awareness of the dangers of fracking. Mark is a well know film maker that exposes many different social issues, he was involved in the production of “The Kids Are All Right”. He has worked to educate people on the problems caused by natural gas development. He goes through the problems in the drinking water and the destruction of the land around the drilling rigs. These problems come from the chemicals that are used in the process of fracking the well, many are not publicized because they are proprietary information. This makes the danger that much greater, it is difficult to look for something when that material is not known. He is working to inform New York and Delaware River Valley residents of the dangers. Contamination of this ground water could endanger millions of people. He goes through many of the legal problems in the industry, the fact that the industry is exempt from many safety and environmental regulations that other industries must abide by. The article is ended with a statement from Mark about this nation’s problem with its dependence on fossil fuel. That there needs to me a fundamental shift away and that that reducing the consumption of natural gas is one part. He is not extremely opposed to the use of natural gas but believes in a move away from fossil fuels for the nation’s future. In the article there is a story that Mark Ruffalo told about one of his close friends, how his home was affected by the gas industry in his area. This was a situation he had an emotional attachment to and felt more devastating to him that it does to many other people. This emotional attachment is a significant portion of his motivation. He never give any specific amount of people affected by the gas industry, he give no amount of ground water affected per well. Only that people’s water has the potential of being contaminated and several examples of this happening. Any amount of contamination is bad, but there is some level of environmental change associated with any industrial activity, even renewable energy facilities. Even though he is only trying to educate the people about the gas industry he does not speak to the potential benefits. There could be great economic benefits for the local resident and benefits for the nation as a total if gas was developed in a responsible manner. He only calls for a move away immediately with no consideration for the transition period to a new energy source. There are those who do not make a strong judgment on the industrial development of the gas industry. One such article was written by Mark Schleifstein for Nola.com, “Haynesville natural gas field is the most productive in the U.S.”. This article goes through the history of the Haynesville field and then future development of it. There is a great deal of potential economic benefit for the state, also there is the great potential to devastate the environment. There is significant economic data to support the further development of gas in the Haynesville are, Louisiana. The water contamination concerns for local residents is also addressed, in the state government has stricter regulations than other states on the process of hydro fracking. This is showing that the process can be done safely with minimize water contamination. The article does talk about the hazards of gas, it cites the potential for explosions. As development continues rigs will be place closer to populate areas and the potential for a disaster will increase. The environment for gas drilling in Louisiana greatly differs from the situation in other places in the nation. There are different geological and social conditions that make it more favorable and safer to dill in that area. The previous two articles were looking at this as being either good or bad for the entire nation. This article shows that it has the potential to be beneficial in some areas and not other places. There needs to be an eventual shift away from a fossil fuel economy, both because the extraction of such resources is harmful to the environment and because the use of them is changing the global climate. However this cannot be an overnight process. There must be some transition period to develop alternatives, but alternatives must be developed. One problem society has is that there is still a belief that traditional fuel will continuously be discovered throughout the world. This is now being perpetuated with recent discoveries of vast amounts of natural gas in the U.S. For the short term there must be some development of natural gas. This must be done in a social and environmentally responsible manner. There needs to be more research into less harmful methods of fracking, ones that do not contaminate water. With this development there should not be a complete shift to a natural gas economy as some are calling for. This would lead the nation to the same problems it is facing with the oil economy, short supply and depending on volatile nations for energy. In the short term gas would reduce the nation’s dependence of foreign oil, this would make the nation much more secure on the world political stage. Policies that force companies to act in a responsible manner must be enforced. Responsible action would allow safe development of the industry. Even with development of the gas industry there still needs to be an increase in renewable energy investment. The world is coming up on limits on how much carbon can be put into the atmosphere. If this is continued there will be devastating consequences. Sources Against Gas Development: Joanna Zellman, “Mark Ruffalo’s Crusade Against Fracking: ‘The World is Leaving Us Behind’” 3/27/2011 [] [|For Development: Jack Ford, “Potential of Natural Gas as a Futrue Energy Source” 2/2011 http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/The-Potential-of-Natural-Gas-as-a-Future-Energy-Source.html] Neutral to Gas Development: Mark Schleifstein, “Haynesville natural gas field is the most productive in the U.S.” 1/20/2011 []