For some time now I have been trying to understand the discussion on “hydraulic fracturing,” a term that refers to the possibility of processing natural gas from underground in a way that it could be used for fuel for cars and trucks.
They say such a process could free America from being dependent on the Middle East for oil. Now this is a possibility that will grab your attention
The argument against “hydraulic fracturing,” or “fracking” as some call it, is that it could contaminate drinking water, and it could cause earthquakes. Notice the use of the verb “could.” They are not certain about this catastrophic occurrence.
I was thinking about this process last week when CBS News told me that big money was already fracking in Pennsylvania, and there were plans to frack in Upper State New York.
Then a friend told me they were already fracking in North Dakota.
With all this fracking going on, I felt that maybe concerned people could require that television commercials be run in these geographical areas to warn people about the possible side effects.
You know like they do on the television commercials for Cialis.
When they show the beautiful couples obviously on their way to unbridled passion under the aid of Cialis, a poetic voice warns that a man could lose his genitals if he mixes an alcoholic drink with Cialis. I could be wrong because it is difficult to hear the warnings, but I think the warnings also emphasize the possibility of blindness or going deaf.
I am confident that highly paid lawyers have advised the Cialis company to run these warnings for protection against law suits.
Well, I am surprised that the lawyers are not warning the public about the dangers of fracking.
You know losing your drinking water, or losing your house in an earthquake is just about as bad as going deaf or blind.
I knew that the money potential in this search for fuel would cancel out concerns for our water supply or earthquakes.
After all, here in America, we live by Michael Douglas’ line in Wall Street: “Greed is good.”
For Heaven’s sake, we’re being fracked as I write this.
Certainly, I hope that fracking is safe. As I understand it, the process involves pumping large amounts of water and chemicals into the ground then retrieving the gas by pumping it out. Then voila, we fill up our gas tanks.
I tend to simplify complicated scientific processes so I can understand them, so it could be that I have made this process sound to simple.
In my quest for information that would help me understand hydraulic fracturing, I read dozens of columns, some for and some against.
And then there was one report written by Peter H. Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, which included the following paragraph:
“What is critically apparent is that the dialogue about hydraulic fracturing — to the extent there has been a dialogue rather than a series of monologues — has been marked by confusion and obfuscation due to a lack of clarity about the terms used, serious data and information gaps, and ideological positions. A more fruitful and informed debate is only likely to lead to appropriate energy, water and environmental policies. But the current debate is rarely informed, and even less frequently, fruitful.
“Can we figure out how to reap the benefits of fracking without suffering, unnecessarily, the adverse costs? If not, opposition will continue to grow, and it will be deserved.”
I love it when I find someone who is more confused than I am.
Gillis Morgan is an associate professor emeritus of journalism at Auburn University and an award-winning columnist. He can be reached at morgarg7@aol.com
