The combination of horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF, fracking) in the past decade has revolutionized the natural gas industry and greatly increased energy supplies worldwide. The benefits of fracking include enhanced energy security, decreased energy costs, and employment opportunities. Conversely, the risks of fracking include ground and surface water contamination, emissions of methane and particulate matter into the air, noise, habitat fragmentation, health impacts, and industrialization of rural landscapes. Two camps emerged early in the development of fracking. Proponents, including industry and its supporters, seized on the benefits and argued for continued use – and even expansion – of fracking technologies well into the future. Opponents believed that the risks outweighed the benefits, and argued that fracking should be stopped through moratoria. Six years ago, Klemow (2012) argued that the decisions regarding the future of fracking should be informed by good science that is well explained to the various stakeholders. Instead, he noted that proponents and opponents alike were guilty of cherry-picking the science to fit their arguments, thus preventing a consensus as to whether fracking should continue. Has the situation improved in the past six years?
Results/Conclusions
Fracking has remained controversial over the past six years. Proponents continue to extol the virtues of natural gas, and often demonize the opponents – whom they label as “fractivists.” Opponents of fracking continue to criticize the natural gas industry, and have focused their attention on natural gas pipelines that are being enlarged or newly developed. An analysis of the literature, especially blogs and newsletters from each of the sides based in the large Marcellus play of Pennsylvania and surrounding states, found that both groups continue to selectively cite scientific studies to advance their causes. In many cases, arguments have been based on news reports of emerging studies. In other cases, arguments are based on a read of the studies themselves. Websites of industry supporters tend to criticize those scientists who find adverse impacts of fracking – often calling their credentials or funding into question. Conversely, they praise studies that fail to show adverse impacts. For their part, fracking opponents often misconstrue the technical facets of research, or generalize studies conducted in other shale plays that demonstrate adverse impacts, as being relevant to the Marcellus play. Interestingly, neither side argues for additional funding to support science that examines the risks of fracking