Keywords and Terms: Secretary Hillary
Clinton; Governor Jeb Bush; Emails; Presidential Campaigns; Fracking; Super-fracking;
Gulf-Coast States; ABCTV News program, THIS WEEK; General Colin Powell; Keystone
XL pipeline project; Environmental, Social and Financial impacts; Republican
Aspirants: Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Tom Cruz; Governor Rick Perry
During Ms. Hillary Clinton’s service to the nation as the
Secretary of State, it was hard to understand why a remote server and personal
account would not be ideal for official email traffic, just like some previous
US Secretaries of State had done. There is an inherent indifference and probably
a conflict of interest as we watch former Governor of the State of Florida make
available email addresses of presidential campaign benefactors or prospective
donors on the WEB, recently. The focus today is neither why a former US
Secretary of State or the Governor of the State of Florida fell into doldrums
or miscalculations of executive actions; or, why some citizens feel both
actions of front runners for the 2016 Presidential Campaign for the White House
are misgiven; however, it is to explore why fracking, a modern means of
exploring oil and gas may be the key issue in the race for the 2016 White
House. It is a huge issue because the Democratic
Party front runner, Secretary Hillary Clinton, has not shown her obvious
opposition; but her probable opponent, Governor Jeb Bush, has affirmatively
blessed and accepted the process as a viable technology to increase the source
of carbon-based energy source.
In case you are wondering why not pay attention to exploring
the former US Secretary of State action regarding personal emails for official
duties, there is a current US House Committee seeking the secretary’s personal
account and looking at the possibility of some error of judgment. Meanwhile, for the records, it is not the
place of this blog to look at issues under investigation; we always default to
waiting until all the facts are in before looking at the merits or demerits of
past actions of politicians.
In case you missed the news over the weekend, Former US
Secretary of State under President Bush (43rd), Republican General Colin
Powell, informed George Stephanopoulos, on ABCTV News Program, THIS WEEK, that
he conducted public affairs on a personal email account while US Secretary of
State; and, unless State Department server kept records of such emails, he does
not have a hard copy of most of those emails. Discussing further politics on
ABC Good Morning America on Sunday, March 8, 2015, Mr. Stephanopoulos believes critics
of Ms. Clinton probably overacted on the email issue and he can hardly fathom
why this rabble rouser issue is likely to fold up the 2016 Presidential Campaign
of the former US Secretary of State under President Obama. However, since past
actions seem to predict future actions, it is not out of place to re-visit this
issue at a future date, if necessary. For now, we have chosen to explore a
burning issue in the hearts of many environmentalists, scientists, oil and gas
explorers, and our neighbors to the north, not to exclude one thing many
Republicans are miffed about: The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline project
and the failure of Congressional House Republicans to override a sitting Democratic
President’s veto on the project.
FRACKING
What is fracking? This is a process for drilling down into
the heart of the earth until a high-pressure water mixture is used to release
or loosen gas and oil from shale rock. Water, sand and chemicals are used under
high pressure to accomplish these processes that allow gas and oil to pass
through a head well. The vertical or horizontal process through rock layers
create pathways for gas and oil to move through extended channels to a head
well storage for harvesting. In a 2005 journal article published in Volume 27
of Ore Geology Reviews, Dr. Blundell, D. defines hydro-fracking as a
well-simulation technique in which rock is fractured by hydraulically
pressurized liquid made of water, sand and chemicals. A new technology in the
exploration of gas and oil, very controversial if you ask farmers who are at
odds with fracking that runs them off their lands, including their herds, as
their farmlands are gradually being dominated by oil and gas wells employing
fracking.
Fracking is gradually becoming an issue on the 2016 White
House Presidential campaigns because some visionaries and skeptical
environmentalists have raised grave concerns regarding the associated risks of
fracking for the water table in many states with increased fracking activities.
Like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Tom Cruz and Rick Perry, all Republican aspirants
for the 2016 White House, each will likely inform you he has a policy statement
regarding fracking vis-à-vis his Presidential Campaign; but is probably not
ready to give it away. However, no one will be surprised, if each of these 2016
White House aspirants catty-up to fracking as another option to look at in
harvesting carbon-based fuel. Candidly, in support of these aspirants, many
voters in their constituencies hardly a bad word for fracking because, it has
provided some level of financial security for them and their families,
especially in the deprived and desperate South Eastern and Gulf Coast States, North
and, South Dakotas.
Unfortunately, the environmental, social and financial
impacts of fracking as a drilling technology make it a subject of controversy;
and, when a probable Presidential front-runner of a major political party is in
complete support of the technology, it is important to look closely at the
issues raised by scientists as well as skeptics, even if only for information
sake. Environmentalists’ complaints about the risks associated with fracking as
drilling technology, including: 1) release of hazardous pollutants and
emissions of methane and diesel fumes to the environment from the process; 2)
fugitive emissions from several stages of natural gas production and methane
leakage from shale gas during fracking make the environment unsafe; 3) water
used in hydraulic fracturing are diverted from other uses, municipal and
industrial purposes; 4) induced seismicity from fracking trigger large quakes
that impacts people’s life; 5) disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastewater has
been a difficulty; and, 6) noise pollution from the fracturing activities and
moving equipment, have been of concern by some residents of the US; and, are
well documented by geological scientists researching this new technology in the
field.
It is widely believed in some oil-producing Gulf States, and
probably enthusiastically supported throughout majority of those state governments,
where fracking is the new norm of harvesting oil and gas from the bowels of the
earth, that there are no other safer means of dislodging oil and gas that
remain imbedded in the rocks for ages and were unavailable for harvesting
before the arrival of the technology. Unfortunately, this is far from the
truth; the assumption that fracking is safer for dislodging oil and gas from
shale, is a mistaken assumption, driven by opportunities for added profits and extra
revenue from taxes to State government coffers. Yes, fracking may bring huge
supplies of oil and gas to the market; yes, the US has been a global leader in
the use of the technology, with companies as Halliburton, Schlumberger and Baker
Hughes leading the way; however, the choice to stretch this technology,
including what is referred to as “super fracking” has led to increased tremors
and earthquakes in some states where there have been increased activities of
oil and gas exploration.
POLITICS, PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Should the nation have reasons to worry that this activity
may lead to other increased pressure on the horizontal and vertical stability
of the earth surface? Should our politicians have their say regarding this new
technology? Should we question the position of each candidate for the 2016
White House regarding this technology? Majority of the political campaigns may
have some talking points regarding this technology and its place in increasing
the supply of US petroleum supplies and bi-products; however, it is probably
impossible to say each of them have other innovative ideas regarding how to
increase carbon-based fuel. A few may even subscribe to the use of the
technology just as Jeb Bush, the leading Republican candidate for the 2016
White House race; however, none of them could place an argument for cutting
back on the use of the technology because of the identified associated risks
and daringness of the technology in exploring for oil and gas.
This technology opens not only doors for increased oil and
gas production; however, it comes with associated risks that may bring more problems
in the future. Oil producers may see profits and states may see energy security
from the expansion of use of the technology; however, can any Presidential
aspirant ask pragmatic questions regarding the unsettledness of the earth and
earthquakes in many states with increased fracking activities? Leaders, especially
Presidential office aspirants, are expected to be visionaries. The conventional
view today of fracking is that the technology is bringing unprecedented volume
of oil and gas to the market and has increased US exports of gas. While helping
cut back on oil and gas prices and making US a new net exporter of carbon-based
fuel, the question to ask maybe is: at what trade-offs? We have had wild swings in oil and gas prices
lately; however, no one has been able to explain to the public, why this is so;
or, whether the increased use of fracking had helped soften the world market spot
prices.
2016 Presidential aspirants have opportunity to recognize
the trade-offs here; and lift up concerns for increased use of the technology.
There are reported use of the technology in Canada, Mexico, Poland, Russia and
other Middle- East State. However, how can we put associated problems of this
new technology in focus as we enjoy the extra oil and gas that it has afforded
on the market? If the technology is already internationalized, should there be
an international conscience and cautiousness of the repercussion of the use of
the technology for harvesting oil and gas? Obama’s administration’s displeasure
with the Canadian Keystone XL project seems to have miffed Republicans – it has
even grown to what some Republicans describe to as a full-blown threat to
American Energy Security – however, none of the 2016 presidential aspirants
have offered a clue as regard what they would do, except, once we vote a
Republican into the White House, the project is a certainty. Have any of the current
Republican aspirants considered why the president of the United States vetoes
the project in the first place? Could it be as recognition of the level of
output from fracking that has emboldened or advised the White House to say no
to the project? These are plausible issues that need to be explored by the Presidential
aspirants.
No comments:
Post a Comment