View the article here.
The recent expansion of the fracking industry in the U.S. is leading us to energy self-sufficiency and giving our economy a nice boost. Now it seems Europe wants in on the benefits. It is estimated that Europe's shale-gas deposits might match those found in the U.S. however regulations on fracking are much more strict. These environmental regulations (and outright bans) often make it uneconomic for gas companies to drill in many European countries. France, in particular, is adamantly against fracking. However, some European countries, seeing its promise in the U.S., have begun to deregulate fracking. Most recently Ukraine made a deal with Shell to start probing for unconventional gas sources.
If the fracking industry were to expand in Europe it could bring some much needed jobs, revenues, and energy independence. Russia voiced its disapproval of this new deal, since it exports to many European countries. Experts estimate that it may take up to 5 years to determine if shale gas exists in Europe in commercial quantities, but rolling out the welcome mat is the first step.
4 comments:
I was under the impression that fracking is not an entirely safe method of extraction. Doesn't it often contaminate surrounding groundwater reserves/make use of toxic chemicals to get the job done? I suppose I'm all for economic development, but if the price is tons of people being poisoned and made ill, I suspect there's probably a better alternative somewhere.
As Supermerk stated, fracking is great for the bottom line, but it contaminates the drinking water, among many other things. Here in the United States fracking has been recieved with hostility and frustration. Human health must take the front seat this time. Our water is already poisoned with flouride, no need to make it worse.
I actually did my senior seminar research paper on fracking last semester. While I agree there are substantial risks involved with fracking, there is currently no significant scientific evidence that it has caused groundwater/aquifer contamination. I do agree that more research should be done on the risks of fracking because it has been linked to earthquakes and gas leaks.
Having said that, the benefits of fracking shouldn't be underestimated. It allows previously uneconomic sources of natural gas and oil to become economically viable. This not only means a better bottom line, but is a real and significant step towards energy independence for many countries. I think France, who has banned fracking, is more free to do so because their nuclear power program is so advanced.
This reminded me of a similar case in Vietnam 3 years ago while the Vietnamese government tried to convince public for their exploitation of bauxite in the Central Highland (Southest Moutains in Vietname). In the face of intense criticism from all sides including experts, scientist, in and out researches, they were determined to take the move defying the fact that lands may be extremely contaminated and no longer usable plus economic benefits are limited. State-run projects and interest group may be best explainable in this case and in European case. My point is despite economic results are seeable, it' would not be worthy destroying lands and living environment and cause many externalities under any circumstances.
Post a Comment