In May 2010, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., proclaimed “We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.” The statement exaggerates the size of the gas reserves but captures the United States’ growing energy optimism. Whereas a decade ago people feared that the nation would soon exhaust the supply of natural gas, pundits are now predicting energy-led prosperity driven by the new access to gas reserves.
Two improvements in technology have opened up this possibility. Horizontal drilling allows wells to angle sideways through the ground expands drilling territory. The controversial partner advance is in hydraulic fracturing, or as the slang goes, fracking.
Fracking in not a recent phenomenon. For over six decades, energy interests have developed the method of extracting natural gas from deeply buried shale formations. To do such, millions of gallons of water and chemicals are pumped at extremely high pressures to crack the rock, thus jarring the gas loose.
Mississippi is a key state for natural gas interests. The Texas-Louisiana-Mississippi Salt Basin covers south Mississippi while the Black Warrior Basin blankets most of the state’s northeast. A significant part of this region is ripe for a natural gas play.
Political leaders such as Haley Barbour and Gov. Phil Bryant are wooing the energy industry to come get our natural gas while the energy is cheap. We are jostling at the front of the line, not waiting for prices and profits to rise.
The Energy Information Administration estimates that the U.S. has about 2500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At current use, this translates as 110 years of gas at current use levels. The statistic does not mean that natural gas will supply the entire U.S. energy needs for a century. We will still have to have other energy sources. Indicators suggest that natural gas use will greatly increase thus shortening the lifetime of the reserves. Though Americans consider a century-ago to be almost ancient history, a hundred years is a blink in time.
On the other hand, natural gas could serve as transition fuel, allowing renewables to be refined. Yet, necessity drives innovation. Expanding fossil fuel use delays new energy development. We can hear industry claim that soon fracking will be much cleaner, soon renewables will provide our energy, and soon we will no longer need to be dependent on global energy reserves. This is what I call the tech savior fallacy. Right now, we have put minimal emphasis on environmental security. Until Americans exert significant legal and political pressure to the energy industry, these promises will remain hot air.
When energy leaders tout fossil fuels as comparatively clean, one has to be troubled by what is then considered dirty. T. Boone Pickens asserts that “Natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, domestic and viable now.” While burning natural gas releases about half the amount of oil’s carbon dioxide, drilling and transporting natural gas leaves a large carbon footprint.
Cornell University’s Robert Howarth estimates that at least 8 percent of the gas drilled leaks into the atmosphere as methane. Scientists have documented several, if rare, cases of shallow wells leaking contaminating chemicals into groundwater. Industry defines fracking narrowly which gives a picture of greater safety than if the entire extracting processes were considered. Vast amounts of land are converted to an environmental wasteland in order to extract the energy.
Unfortunately around 30 percent of the 7 million gallons used to frack each well remains in the shale. According to “Popular Mechanics,” the trapped water is “lost forever.” Energy proponents point to the low amount of water used in comparison to water used for farming, mining and industry. However, there is a difference between losing water and using water. The wastewater that returns to the surface is laced with proven carcinogens such as benzene and methanol. Environment America suggests that residents living near fracking sites have experience increased health problems driven by polluted water. The question we have to ask is whether energy security or water security is more important.
As alluded to, the domestic nature of the energy has great appeal. In the name of energy security, we must drill, frack, drill. Energy security is seen as a strength. Ideally, a more energy independent U.S. will be able to go on its merry way without an oil producing country’s volatility hindering our style. Yet, we are not leaving the global energy trade. We are not going to become content isolationists. We are seeking greater geopolitical leverage. However, our importing gives us great clout as it is. When we place an economic sanction on an oil-rich country, the country listens. If we back out of importing energy, other players such as China and India will fill the vacuum and curtail our interest.
Thus, a change in energy security has less geopolitical impact than touted. Energy expansion really just expands corporate profits. The jobs and money from this, however, are considerable benefits. Reserves offer energy security. Using those reserves at a capitalistic pace diminishes future security.
All in all, natural gas should be treated as another problematic, needed fossil fuel. Fracking does not solve our insatiable energy desires. It is also just too thirsty.
Neal McMillin is a senior southern studies major from Madison.
