Fracking is a big problem in Pennsylvania (Pa), one of seven swing states in the upcoming US elections. Hydraulic fracturing is essential to producing nearly 60 percent of the state’s electricity (Figure 1). Surprisingly, nuclear is at 32% (remember the 3-mile island meltdown in 1979), while coal is only at 5% and other renewables, including wind and solar, represent only a dismal 2.3%.

Why is hydraulic fracturing a key? The vast majority of oil and gas wells are fracked, and Pennsylvania gas wells are no exception. If wells are not fracked, they do not produce enough gas to be commercially profitable. If fracking were banned, gas wells would not be drilled in Pennsylvania.

If hydraulic fracturing was banned

First, gas supplies would decline over time and massive investments would quickly have to be made in nuclear, solar or wind power to try to compensate. Although it is a challenge, it has been done, and the current state of affairs South Australia did it in eight years since 2016, when they replaced their one and only coal-fired power plant with primarily wind farms that now provide more than 70% of continuous electricity per year. Natural gas plays a minor role.

Second, jobs would be lost in the gas industry. Direct and indirect jobs linked to gas are estimated at around 100,000 in Pa. Whether they could be replaced by nuclear and renewable energy is controversial. But the mood over the next ten years would likely be one of despair if fracking came to an abrupt halt.

Third, revenues for the state and private landowners would decline. Landowners’ income comes from an initial rental fee, followed by royalties paid regularly on the volume of gas produced. State revenue comes from rental fees and taxes. Pennsylvania taxes on gas production have reached nearly $180 million in 2023. But that’s not all: That same year, the state collected $174 million from an annual impact fee paid to counties to offset infrastructure repairs caused by drilling activities.

In total, the state has collected about $1 billion since 2008, when the governor authorized drilling on state lands, a controversial decision when shale gas was booming at the time. It is worth noting here that a study of oil-rich states, such as Texas, showed that local county tax revenues from oil wells would not be replaceable by renewable energies like wind and solar. We can assume that this position would also apply to a gas-rich state such as Pa. Thus, Pa would need to quickly diversify its economy to prepare for a drop in revenue if fracking were banned.

The argument for banning fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, like a scarecrow, has been accused of many things. First, pollute surface aquifers that provide drinking water to landowners or their animals. Second, for the deleterious effects on the health of people living near a gas well. Third, for misusing fracking water from aquifers that ranchers depend on in semi-desert areas of the country, like New Mexico. Fourth, for causing earthquakes in Oklahoma and West Texas. And finally, for the addition of greenhouse gases (GHG) to the atmosphere, responsible for global warming. Let’s examine these claims.

The bogeyman of fracking actually originated in Pennsylvania with a gas explosion near a farm caused by a gas leak from a gas well. But this was not due to fracking. This was caused by gas leaking through the well casing and to the surface, posing a well integrity issue.

Accusations of deleterious effects on human health have been investigated and found to be unproven.

It is true that water from aquifers for hydraulic fracturing leads to overexploitation. In a typical shale gas well, huge volumes of water are injected into approximately 40 separate fracturing operations spaced along a 3 km horizontal well. The total water would rise up to 40 feet if contained above the grassy area of ​​a football stadium. This could obviously be a problem in the semi-desert regions of the southwestern United States, but not in Pennsylvania, where most fracking water is recycled and not discharged into disposal wells.

Hydraulic fracturing does not directly cause earthquakes. But after fracking, a well produces gas or oil and sometimes a lot of water. When this wastewater is discharged deep down, it can put pressure on existing natural faults and cause earthquakes. This has been a problem in Oklahoma, West Texas, and New Mexico, but the problem has been controlled by limiting the flow and volumes of wastewater disposed of in this manner.

Each of these problems was reviewed in depth elsewhere. At the end of the investigation, hydraulic fracturing was not proven to be the cause of any of these problems. Hydraulic fracturing is not the bogeyman that has been pushed and twisted by zealous anti-fracking groups.

But there is one exception: global warming and climate change caused by greenhouse gases. This is the key to the political debate in Pennsylvania.

Does fracking cause climate change?

Hydraulic fracturing does not directly cause climate change. But fracking is complicit because gas production in Pennsylvania, followed by burning the gas in power plants or in homes and businesses, contributes to global warming. Remember that the oil and gas industry is responsible for approximately 50% of global warming.

Global warming leads to direct effects of climate change, such as the melting of Arctic ice and the retreat of glaciers. But global warming is not responsible for extreme weather events such as droughts, wildfires, floods and hurricanes.¹.

This phenomenon is not well understood, but it is important because these extreme weather events are the ones that cause the most serious consequences for civilization (think of the current terrible drought in Sudan). The crux of the problem is that these extreme weather events have not gotten worse over the last 40 to 50 years, when global warming increased by 1.0°C, and therefore the oil and gas industry cannot be held responsible for current extreme weather events.

Therefore, extreme weather events are not an argument for halting hydraulic fracturing and natural gas production in Pennsylvania. The other argument in favor of maintaining fracking is that gas burns cleaner than oil or coal: it generates only about half the GHG emissions. This leads to a sound idea that natural gas can be seen as a bridge fuel in the energy transition, one that will be needed to support energy consumption in power plants, manufacturing and building heating. . The idea says gas will be needed until renewable energy is ready to replace coal-fired power plants and internal combustion engines running on gasoline or petroleum-derived diesel. These replacements are already underway and will likely accelerate with the energy transition.

Hydraulic fracturing should not be banned in Pennsylvania, or anywhere else in the United States. The truth is, coal-fired power plants are disappearing because burning coal is such a dirty process that it aggravates asthma conditions and contributes to global warming. Oil demand will peak around 2030 according to BP, and will decline from around 80% today to 30-50% by 2050, depending on the adoption of electric vehicles. Declining oil demand will alleviate the need for continued drilling of oil wells.

But the world will continue to need gas drilling and fracking, also in Pennsylvania, so that when natural gas is converted to LNG (liquefied natural gas), it provides a cleaner form of electricity and energy security. .and the golden age of LNG will continue.

References

1 Steven Koonin, Unstable, BenBella Books, Dallas, Texas, 2021.