Kevin LaBarge

Environmental Biology
Midterm
10/17/14
1. The process by which natural gas, methane, was created thousands of years ago started when
decaying plant and animal, but mostly plant, remains were buried in the sediment under water.
Normally, when organic materials decay they are burned by the aerobic bacteria that thrive in
an oxygenated environment. In places like the sediment underwater however there is so little
oxygen that it runs out before all of the remains can be burned. In this environment though
there are also anaerobic bacteria that use nitrate or sulfate to burn off organic material as well.
However, if the animal and more commonly plant remains are buried well enough this still will
not be enough to burn the entire organism. What is important about the organic remains that
are left is that they are full of carbon which is what makes them able to be used as fuel, and
eventually, over thousands of years if they are in an environment with high enough temperatures
and pressure they will become natural gas. This natural gas, because it is so light will then float
closer and closer to the surface through cracks in rocks that form from building pressure. If they
make it close enough to the surface they can be extracted by humans.
Today methane is produced as the byproduct of a few natural processes. Most simply,
methane is the byproduct of digestion. Just as methane is produced deep underground as the
byproduct of bacteria it is produced on the surface by all living things. Although in most species
the methane produced through digestion is negligible, scientists have realized that the amount of
methane produced by livestock, in particular cattle, is so great that it can have a serious effect on
climate. Another process by which methane is produced is by the decaying of garbage. Massive
landfills can create an immense amount of methane, as much as roughly 15,500 cubic feet per
minute.1 This methane is produced as a byproduct of the bacteria eating away at the decaying
waste.

1 In Garbology, Humes says that every minute 31,000 cubic feet of gas is released from the
Puente Hills Landfill. He estimates that along with other trace gases about half is methane and
the other is carbon dioxide, therefore the methane count is roughly 15,500 cubic feet per minute.

2. I am opposed to fracking because it is both an immediate and long term danger to the
environment. Fracking is a major hazard to the environment for many reasons. In the short term
fracking destroys wildlife and domestic habitats. In order create fracking sites wildlife habitats
or land that humans inhabit have to be irreversibly altered in order to drill wells and create
pipelines killing off wildlife and forcing people to pick up and move. Another reason why
fracking is such a threat in the short term is because it contaminates ground water. One fracking
well can use up to forty thousand gallons of chemicals made up six hundred various kinds such
as mercury, lead, and formaldehyde. It is easy for these chemicals to either seep into ground
water that flows into municipal water supplies or be spilled all over the fracking site
contaminating the ground around it. In drinking water wells nearer to fracking sites the methane
content is seventeen times higher than of that in normal wells. On the topic of water, another
way in which fracking possesses an immediate threat to our environment is because it uses a
huge amount of fresh water. As the worlds valuable supply of freshwater approaches a critical
level it should be used only for necessary things, like drinking and irrigation, right? Well, not
according the proponents of fracking. It takes anywhere from one to eight million gallons of
water for each fracturing job. That is equal to anywhere in between sixteen and one hundred
twenty-eight million cups of water. In 2013 in the United States there were eighty-two thousand
active fracking wells and each well can be fracked up to eighteen times, meaning that combined
they could use up to 65.6 trillion gallons of water. A threat that is immediate but also has the
potential to be long term is that fracking can cause earth quakes. Fracking works by pumping a
chemical, sand, and water solution horizontally into shale rock under the earths surface in order
to crack it thereby resealing the natural gas inside. Because it takes so much pressure to crack
the shale rock containing the natural gas fracking has been known to cause small earthquakes.
Although as of yet none have been detectable by humans it is possible that fracking and the
subsequent minor earth quakes it has caused are causing increased instability under the earths
surface, which could eventually lead to an earthquake powerful enough to cause damage to
humans. A second long term threat that fracking poses to the environment is that it increases
global warming. Global warming is caused when greenhouse gases become stuck in the
atmosphere and generate heat. The greenhouse gas that has the most effect on the temperature of
the atmosphere is methane, natural gas. When the natural gas is pumped out of fracking wells
some of it either escapes or is burned in excess. This process releases methane, the most harmful
of greenhouse gases into the air unnecessarily. The most dangerous long term threat of fracking
to our environment is that it takes away interest, money, and workers away from the renewable
energy sector. Finding and creating renewable energy options should be the number one priority
in not only our countrys but the worlds energy sector. Fossils will run out sooner rather than
later and they will cost our environment a toll that we cannot repair, and if we continue to use
them carelessly we will reach the lethal two degrees Celsius threshold. The only way to prevent
this from happening is by investing time, money, and manpower not into fracking which is a step
in the wrong direction but into renewable energy.
Although I am anti-fracking I can appreciate the argument of the fracking supporters. However
well-intentioned they may be though they are too short sited. They are all economic which is
important but they are really holding back the renewable energy sector, which could create just
as many jobs and U.S. independence from foreign energy, and whereas these energy sources are
all sustainable, fossil fuels are not. One pro argument is that fracking increases the number of
high paying jobs by one and a half million. Although unemployment is a very important
economic issue the jobs that solve that problem do not necessarily need to come from fracking.

Fracking takes both skilled and unskilled workers and so does the creation of renewable energy
sources. By diverting those jobs to the renewable energy sector the United States could continue
to create jobs and begin to create renewable energy sources. Another argument is that the natural
gas from fracking allows the U.S. to become more independent from foreign oil. If renewable
energy was invested more heavily instead of practices like fracking the energy that the country
received from those sources would be enough to make it completely energy independent. So in
fact, fracking does not make the U.S. more independent from foreign energy but rather more
dependent on it because it takes valuable resources away from renewable sustainable energy.
One of the arguments listed is that renewable energy sources cannot possibly provide enough
energy to the United States, whereas the methane from natural gas can. This is simply not true.
In Earth: The Operators Manual, Alley clearly states that enough sunlight reaches the deserts in
Arizona to power the entire U.S., and furthermore that enough reaches the Sahara desert to
power the entire world.2 Therefore the question is not whether it is possible to generate enough
energy through renewable resources it is what renewable energy types are feasible and allow us
to harness as much natural energy as possible.
One question that I would like to have answered is what the cost comparison is between how
much is spent on fracking in the U.S. and how much is spent on researching and implementing
renewable energy sources? I think that if the money that is being spent on fracking was invested
in renewable energy instead the U.S. could create reliable and long term renewable solutions to
the energy crisis. Another question I would like to know the answer to is how many both skilled
(engineers, etc.) and unskilled (construction crews, etc.) jobs does fracking creates? It is my
opinion that because of the reward of a higher payday both skilled and unskilled workers choose
to work companies that frack instead of trying to be hired by companies that engineer renewable
resources. What would happen if you took all the engineers that work in fracking and put them
to the task of creating renewable energy resources, and then took all of the unskilled workers
who work in fracking and have them assemble what the engineers created? If investors began to
think long term and placed their money in renewables instead of fracking the same amount of
jobs could be created and the energy crisis could be solved.

2 Earth: The Operators Manuel. Richard Alley, p. 5

3. As the world continues to search for solutions to its growing climate crisis the extraction and
use of natural gas as a form of energy is increasingly coming under the spot light. It is believed
by some that natural gas could be used as a bridge from fossil fuels to renewable energy
resources. The extraction, a process known as fracking, and use of natural gas creates less
greenhouse emissions than does more hazardous fossils fuels like coal and gasoline. Proponents
of this bridge theory will usually also point to the economic opportunities that the extraction of
natural gas provides as another one of its benefits. These arguments however, fall flat. There is
in reality no actual need to use natural gas as a bridge to a low carbon future, and in fact
increasing the use or even just continuing to extract and use natural gas as an energy source will
prove to have a negative effect. Based on the environmental, health, and economic risks that the
extraction and use of natural gas poses, as well as the fact that it is realistic to implement
renewable energy sources now natural gas extraction and consumption should be immediately
lessened and quickly desist.
While reading from the source Risks and Risks Governance in Shale Gas
Development: Summary of Two Workshops besides the required sections of Operational Risk
Issues by Kris Nygaard and Implications for Climate Change by Richard Newell I chose to
read Risks of Shale Gas Exploration and Hydraulic Fracturing to Water Resources in the United
States by Avner Vengosh and Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development by Jeffrey
Jacquet. Based on the fact that the other three sources of information A Bridge to Nowhere:
Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas by Robert W. Howarth,
Is Fracking a Bridge to a Clean-Energy Future? Ernest Moniz Thinks So. from the
Washington Post by Brad Plumer, and the presentation by Professor Mark Jacobson from
YouTube from the Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy Conference were so helpful and in
depth I did not find it necessary to use other sources.
I think that it was important to read Operational Risk Issues because it gave me an
insider perspective on the process of fracking and what the industry deems as most important
about it. I was happy to learn that the fracking industry does take into account some of the risks
involved with the procedure. Unfortunately the only two that I could identify were ground water
contamination and seismic activity. Nowhere did Nygaard address the environmental or
economic risks of fracking and using natural gas as source of energy. He even stated outright
that one well uses the equivalent of 8 Olympic-size swimming pools of water.3 I also found
the other required reading, Implications for Climate Change, useful. From the title I expected
this presentation to argue against the use of shale gas, and although it does not explicitly argue in
its favor it presents fracking and the use of shale gas in a somewhat positive light. It says that
shale gas use will increase GDP by 1 percent as well as decrease carbon dioxide equivalents
by 0.4 percent.4 Although I found it helpful I was less interested in this reading because some of
the material was not as easy to understand. It used terms like GWh which I am not familiar
with.5
3 NAS p. 19
4 NAS p.45
5 NAS p.46

I decided to read the section Risks of Shale Gas Exploration and Hydraulic Fracturing to Water
Resources in the United States because how fracking wells effect ground water sources is of
particular interest to me. I found this presentation to be very informative and interesting. I was
most interested to read about the effects of surface water contamination and how radium can
have such a long term effect on water sources.6 The other additional presentation I decided to
read was Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development. Economics is something that I
know very little about but am interested in learning especially in regards to this topic so as I was
skimming over this section I noticed that it contained information about economics, so I decided
to read it. Although, like I said, I know very little about economics this passage was not difficult
to read at all. I found the information very helpful and interesting; thankfully it also supported
my position.
Although advocates of natural gas use the argument that it is cleaner to burn than other fossil
fuels such as coal this is not a valid argument because it still releases incredibly harmful
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere creating an environmental risk. In fact, one of the gases
that it releases is the most dangerous of all greenhouse gases, methane. It is true that that in
using methane to generate electricity rather than coal that greenhouse gas emissions will drop,
but not significantly. In one of his models that predicts the effects of shale gas on the
environment as well as the economy Professor Richard Newell of Duke University estimates that
the cumulative emissions between 2010 and 2040 in carbon dioxide equivalents decrease by 0.4
percent when using shale gas instead of coal.7 Even though there is a decrease in overall carbon
emissions it is less than one percent, which is entirely ineffective in contributing to stabilizing
the atmospheric carbon concentrations at around 550 parts per million. Most scientists believe
that maintaining a carbon at 550 parts per million in the atmosphere will keep the earth from
warming over the critical level of two degrees Celsius, which could have catastrophic
environmental effects.8 In the same presentation that Professor Newell presented this model he
also admitted that fracking and burning natural gas for energy contribute 26 percent of U.S.
carbon dioxide and methane emissions.9 That means the natural gas industry is responsible for
over a quarter of the most dangerous greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. If the use of natural
gas is increased or even continued that amount will surely rise making it impossible to maintain
the two degree Celsius threshold.
Another environmental as well as health risk that natural gas presents is the wasting of the
worlds valuable fresh water supply. In Kris Nygaard of Exxon Mobiles presentation
Operational Risk Issues he states that one fracking well needs about 8 Olympic-size
swimming pools of water. Eight Olympic-size swimming pools is equivalent to around 5.3
6 NAS p. 19,20,21
7 NAS p.45
8 Is Fracking a Bridge to a Clean-Energy Future? Ernest Moniz Thinks So. Brad Plumer
9 NAS p.44

million gallons of fresh water.10 In drier states like Texas the use of massive amounts of fresh
water for fracking could become a problem in some counties.11 That means individual counties
and the fracking industry will face off for the only available fresh water supplies. This means
that for every well in these communities around 84.8 million cups of necessary drinking water
could be taken away from citizens so that unnecessary fracking can take place.
It is no secret that as well as adding to global warming, when burned, fossil fuels contribute to a
large part of air pollution causing severe health risks to people all over the world. In his
presentation at the Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy Conference Professor Mark Jacobson
of Stanford clearly states that there are two and half to three million deaths globally because of
air pollution, which he says is one of the reasons why he believes in an all renewable energy U.S.
is so important.12 Using natural gas will not reduce air pollution enough to have a significant
effect on decreasing the amount of fatalities that it causes, again citing Professor Newell that
over quarter of carbon dioxide and methane emissions come from natural gas.13 Another Health
risk that natural gas contributes to is contaminated drinking water. Fracking for shale gas can
cause serious problems to water ground sources thereby contaminating the drinking water for
some rural communities. High methane levels in drinking water supplies can lead to water
deprivation in communities as well as in some cases property values decreasing.14 Studies
performed by Avner Vengosh of Duke University suggest that stray gas from shale gas wells
was the cause of observed high methane levels in nearby drinking water wells. The study also
suggests that this could be because of inadequate well integrity, improper cementing of wells,
and improper well design that allows gas to escape along the well annulus.15 Fracking also
produces a lot of contaminated waste water that is pumped back up to surface. Although this
water is dealt with in many different ways it is not always dealt with properly and could become
dangerous if communities downstream from treatment facilities us chlorine in their drinking
water supply.16
One thing that fans of natural gas fracking always like to say in support of their opinion is that
fracking brings economic opportunities to the U.S., and in particular the communities in which
10 NAS p.19
11 NAS p.20
12 Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy Conference. Mark Jacobson. YouTube
13 NAS p.44
14 NAS p.18
15 NAS p.19
16 NAS p.20

the fracking specifically takes place. They however, are mistaken in their opinion because rather
than prosperity, after an initial boom fracking brings down the economies of communities. In
Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development Jeffrey Jacquet of South Dakota State
University explains that boom-bust cycle that many towns go through because of fracking.17
Initially fracking presents itself as an economic stimulus and increases employment and tax
revenues as well as in some cases the population of the community, which can benefit the realestate market as well as local businesses in an area.18 According to Jacquet fracking in
communities can also lead to inequality. Those who own the rights to the land above which
natural gas is located tend to benefit much more than others in the community. This leads to
community conflict, distrust, litigation, uncertainty, and confusion about what is happening,
blame-placing, and distaste toward those who benefit. In places where the lease holder does not
even live within the community these occurrences can be amplified.19 Eventually the fracking
wells will run out and the economic stimulus they provided will dry up, but the feelings of
resentment will not. What this means for the fracked out communities in the long term is
instability, and de-diversification of the economy; higher long-term unemployment, poverty,
and inequality; and lower educational attainment compared to similar areas not experiencing
natural resource development.20
Fracking and the use of natural gas as an energy source also have a negative effect on the
national economy. Professor Jacobson argues that the prices of renewable energy, in particular
wind energy, cost less than natural gas. He says that at four to ten and a half cents per kWh wind
is cheaper than natural gas at roughly fifteen cents per kWh on average for electricity including
externality costs. He also says that between 2020 and 2030 natural gas prices should increase to
between eighteen to twenty cents per kWh, while the cost of renewable energy will continue to
decrease. Furthermore, Jacobson goes on to say that in the five states that use the most wind
energy North and South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming the average price of energy
went up only two cents per kWh from 2003 to 2011, as opposed to the other forty-five states, in
which the price of energy increased roughly three and half cents per kWh between 2003 and
2011.21
The final argument as to why natural gas is not only not needed as a bridge into a low carbon
future but is also an immediate threat to our way of life is because it diverts attention and
resources from the advancement and implementation of renewable energy resources. Robert W.
Howarth in A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of
17 NAS p.51
18 NAS p.51-52
19 NAS p.52
20 NAS p.51
21 Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy Conference. Mark Jacobson. YouTube

Natural Gas concludes by laying a plan to make the State of New York run entirely on
renewable energy sources by 2050, and in his presentation Mark Jacobson does the same. In
fact, Jacobson takes it a step further and lays out a plan to make California run on one hundred
percent renewable resources by 2050 as well.22 Both Howarth and Jacobson argue that the
energy technology is available; it is just a matter of using it. Both models use proven methods of
offshore and onshore wind, solar, and geothermal energy resourcing. In Jacobsons conclusion
he argues that it this is not a technological problem it is a social and political one.23 This means
that the culture of United States towards energy will have to change in order for renewable
energy to be put into widespread use. In his closing lines Howarth reiterates this by saying,
Only through such technological conversions can society truly address global change.24 What
this also means is that we cannot properly address global warming through natural gas, the
solution needs to come through renewable resources.
In conclusion it is clear to see the negative effects that fracking has. Not only is it not necessary
to use shale gas as a bridge to a low carbon future it is dangerous to use it at all. The
environmental, health, and economic risks as well as the fact that renewable energy sources are
available for use now make natural gas an unnecessary hazard. I think that this exercise as whole
was did a great job of informing me about both the pros and cons of natural gas fracking usage as
an energy source. I think that all of the sources had relevant and important information about
both sides of the argument. I also like how this exercise allowed me to express my own opinion
in a way that has broadened my understanding of the issue, and allowed me to strengthen my
argument regarding it.

22 A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural
Gas. Howarth. & Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy Conference. Mark Jacobson.
YouTube
23 Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy Conference. Mark Jacobson. YouTube
24 A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural
Gas. Howarth.

Bibliography
Alley, Richard B.. Earth: the operators' manual. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011.
Howarth, Robert W.. "A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas
Footprint of Natural Gas." Energy and Science Engineering 2, no. 2 (2012): 47-60.
Humes, Edward. Garbology: our dirty love affair with trash. New York: Avery, 2012.
Jacobson, M. Z., R. W. Howarth, M. A. Delucchi, S. R. Scobies, J. M. Barth, M. J. Dvorak, et al.
2013. Examining the feasibility of converting New York State's all-purpose energy
infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight. Energy Policy 57:585601and
Jacobson and Jacobson, M. A., and M. A. Delucchi. 2011. Providing all global energy
with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: technologies, energy resources, quantities and
areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 39:11541169.
Plumer, Brad. "Is Fracking a 'Bridge' to a Clean-Energy Future? Ernest Moniz Thinks So.." The
Washington Post (Washington D.C.), March 5, 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/04/is-fracking-a-bridge-toa-clean-energy-future-ernest-moniz-thinks-so/ (accessed October 20, 2014).
Stern, Paul C.. Risks and risk governance in shale gas development: summary of two
workshops.. S.l.: National Academies Press, 2014.