While a majority of Americans remain unfamiliar with hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” according to a recent University of Texas poll, many will certainly applaud the economic benefits of low-cost natural gas. The environmental and public health concerns of local communities must be addressed if natural gas companies are to maintain their social license to operate. As unconventional natural gas production spreads into populous regions that are not accustomed to intensive industrial activity, its impacts have made it the object of intense local opposition, as manifested in the July 28th “Stop the Frack Attack” rally in Washington D.C and others like it in state capitals around the country. Today, it accounts for more than 30% - while more than 90% of all new oil and gas wells being drilled in the U.S. In 2001, shale gas accounted for just 2% of America’s natural gas supply. No candidate’s position on natural gas can be considered complete unless it addresses these impacts. At the local level in areas where shale gas production is intense, legitimate concerns over health and environmental impacts are shared by Republican, Democratic, and independent voters alike. Shale gas also brings with it a set of serious risks to public health and the environment - including impacts to water, air, land, local communities and the earth’s climate. And though each candidate’s position on natural gas development is likely to begin with a recognition of shale gas’s economic and energy security benefits, mastery of the issue requires a deeper level of understanding. Every major-party candidate for public office in 2012, Republican or Democrat, must understand this new energy reality. Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, processes used to extract natural gas from underground shale formations, have unlocked vast new domestic reserves - an unexpected abundance that has overturned many of America’s assumptions about energy. To download a copy of this briefing paper, please click here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |