Fracking, sort of…

One of the biggest controversies surrounding the Marcellus Shale is that of hydraulic fracturing, the process by which chemically altered water is used to extract natural gas from the shale rock.

I’m not a scientist, or even a science major, so I won’t even begin to pretend I understand all the complex chemical and physical reactions taking place, but I do know how to pick apart the rhetorical value of an argument. Let’s take the online  Hydraulic Fracturing Facts page, sponsored by Chesapeake Energy, one of the bigger oil and gas companies and, due to some shoddy PR work, one of my least favorites.

The goal of the page seems to be to give a fair and accurate explanation of what hydraulic fracturing is and how it works. From what I can tell, the page is actually an advertisement, dressed up with scientific terms to make the reader feel better about the ultimate product to be sold: natural gas.

The article has somewhat of an abstract format and the colorful diagram feels even more reassuring; if not for the Chesapeake Energy logo at the bottom of the screen and the evident rhetoric, I could mistake this article for a credible source of information.

Unfortunately, the bias is not subtle. In the first paragraph, hydraulic fracturing is referred to as a “proven technological advancement” that lets big companies like Chesapeake “safely” remove natural gas from the shale rock formations. “Proven technological advancement” is tricky; it translates into the general mindset that advanced technology is better than the old technology, and if it’s “proven” (whatever that means), then it’s even better!  “Safely” was sneakily stuck in – I say “sneakily” because whether or not hydrofracking is actually safe is still up for debate – to, quite obviously, reassure readers that no nasty fracking chemicals will find their way into the drinking-water supply, for example.* The words “safe” and “safely” are found again later in the article, and this makes me acutely aware of their strategy: the more times they put the word “safe” into the article, the more safe consumers will feel about the safe safety of the safe natural gas, which is safely extracted from the safe shale rock. Safe.

The article goes on to mention how a revolution in natural gas would be better for the environment than petroleum and help reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. I won’t argue with these concepts today. I won’t even scoff at the shameless posing of the company to be America’s only chance for meeting its “energy needs” and achieving “economic renewal”…

I will say this: there may be no avoiding hydrofracking, especially with the big oil and gas companies pouring money into keeping it around. Arguing against the natural gas companies seems like a silly way to occupy one’s time (yes, I will admit here to being a bit of a hypocrite), and lobbying for the discontinuation of hydrofracking is just as pointless. It will yield no results, because in the end, the moral of the story is: where there’s a profit, there’s a way.

I don’t know what the answer is here, I’m just musing, just exploring, because I know somewhere under all this craziness is some grain of truth, and that it might just lead to the “economic renewal” everyone so craves. 

*Next time, I’m going to explore the case of drinking-water contamination in Dimock, PA; it seems like the next logical step.