What are legit cons to fracking and how would one argue in defense of or in spite of those cons?
Since you asked, I got you fren:
Most bad reasons are from the past, which aren't done anymore-- from or because of it being done poorly particularly in the early years. Most frackers today, have LOTS of experience, excellent equipment, great data (including geologic data, drilling equipment data, drilled mud data, and data from other wells), better tools and materials including drilling mud. In the early days with tons of money flooding in, there sometimes was a push just to put wells in the ground and get stuff out (for investment, cashflow, or legal rights reasons); but those "shortsighted/careless" days are a many years back, and wont be back.
Using "reinjection" generally helps, but it's not yet done everywhere. This reinjection includes natgas (wet; or dried-removing the liquid fractions like Propane), and other things including water. Reinjecting all the things which instead of being: flared, sold to market, or sent for cleaning, or concentrated-out like sulfur(removing it out of the fuel-supply chain).
Some "best practices" like using reinjection, rather than flaring(burning excess natgas/methane at the wellhead). In many ways this is because people like in the Biden video, oppose pipelines to get the natgas to market (like NY Gov is blocking nat gas pipelines across NY to supply all of New England). More major pipelines need to be built! Even after these years of Trump it's MUCH better, but there is still much red-tape stopping pipelines--the most economical, safe, and environmentally friendly form of transportation.
The US alone wastes a crapload of energy just to flaring.
If flare gas isn't cleaned (before or after combustion), it can put more crap into the air, which isn't good. By and large, we could and should solve our Flare gas issues in a year if a major effort was made to get the pipelines and processing plants built, &/or to put more reinjection into the formations.
So completing the loop at the wellhead on product coming out is important. This lets the parts desired to move along the supply-chain, the rest is cleaned (eg desulfurization) and reinjected. Some wells use CO2 (incl frozen chips) as part of the fracking mud, and in the future better CO2 reinjection will accompany the wellhead.
Rapid advances happen every month for better technology to separate out the fractions desired at the wellhead or at a collection/processing plant.
A few places have very complex geology (like lots of folds, cracks, buckles, faults, etc.) and these places take extra care and might not be uniform enough to make worth while with low prices.
Some places have weak geology, and so fracking isn't suited well for these locations without other measures which generally aren't cost effective.
If only extraction is done, it can cause some issues like any extraction with land subsidence, and decreases in future oil/gas production. As it's physically reducing the volume underground. (insert pictures of Tokyo delta, Venice Bay, Bangladesh Delta, Mexico City, etc. where the ground has lowered "muh sea level rise" from (industrial) water wells extracting groundwater from 1960+ before it was stopped in many locations to nearly stop the sinking rate.)
Greenfield development (brand new) is often cleaner and less disruptive than existing operations; by simple things like fewer roads and fewer wellhead/vertical wells. The costs of re-doing an existing well or field of wells, might not make capital sense, rather than more Greenfield development.
Also many complicated answers about the money/Capital side of the industry; in how the industry is structured, cashflow, debt, prices, etc. Overall, there is still a great imbalance in the US Energy market segments, even with restrictions on exporting largely removed. Like the cost of (dry) natgas should be like $1/million BTU; but there's too much pipeline contraints; too much structured debt including by local utilities with guaranteed returns by regulation; too much legacy costs in other energy industries; and many other things including The FED's ZERP policies, I could go on and on for much storytime :)
Since you asked, I got you fren:
Most bad reasons are from the past, which aren't done anymore-- from or because of it being done poorly particularly in the early years. Most frackers today, have LOTS of experience, excellent equipment, great data (including geologic data, drilling equipment data, drilled mud data, and data from other wells), better tools and materials including drilling mud. In the early days with tons of money flooding in, there sometimes was a push just to put wells in the ground and get stuff out (for investment, cashflow, or legal rights reasons); but those "shortsighted/careless" days are a many years back, and wont be back.
Using "reinjection" generally helps, but it's not yet done everywhere. This reinjection includes natgas (wet; or dried-removing the liquid fractions like Propane), and other things including water. Reinjecting all the things which instead of being: flared, sold to market, or sent for cleaning, or concentrated-out like sulfur(removing it out of the fuel-supply chain).
Some "best practices" like using reinjection, rather than flaring(burning excess natgas/methane at the wellhead). In many ways this is because people like in the Biden video, oppose pipelines to get the natgas to market (like NY Gov is blocking nat gas pipelines across NY to supply all of New England). More major pipelines need to be built! Even after these years of Trump it's MUCH better, but there is still much red-tape stopping pipelines--the most economical, safe, and environmentally friendly form of transportation.
The US alone wastes a crapload of energy just to flaring.
If flare gas isn't cleaned (before or after combustion), it can put more crap into the air, which isn't good. By and large, we could and should solve our Flare gas issues in a year if a major effort was made to get the pipelines and processing plants built, &/or to put more reinjection into the formations.
So completing the loop at the wellhead on product coming out is important. This lets the parts desired to move along the supply-chain, the rest is cleaned (eg desulfurization) and reinjected. Some wells use CO2 (incl frozen chips) as part of the fracking mud, and in the future better CO2 reinjection will accompany the wellhead.
Rapid advances happen every month for better technology to separate out the fractions desired at the wellhead or at a collection/processing plant.
A few places have very complex geology (like lots of folds, cracks, buckles, faults, etc.) and these places take extra care and might not be uniform enough to make worth while with low prices.
Some places have weak geology, and so fracking isn't suited well for these locations without other measures which generally aren't cost effective.
If only extraction is done, it can cause some issues like any extraction with land subsidence, and decreases in future oil/gas production. As it's physically reducing the volume underground. (insert pictures of Tokyo delta, Venice Bay, Bangladesh Delta, Mexico City, etc. where the ground has lowered "muh sea level rise" from (industrial) water wells extracting groundwater from 1960+ before it was stopped in many locations to nearly stop the sinking rate.)
Greenfield development (brand new) is often cleaner and less disruptive than existing operations; by simple things like fewer roads and fewer wellhead/vertical wells. The costs of re-doing an existing well or field of wells, might not make capital sense, rather than more Greenfield development.
Also many complicated answers about the money/Capital side of the industry; in how the industry is structured, cashflow, debt, prices, etc. Overall, there is still a great imbalance in the US Energy market segments, even with restrictions on exporting largely removed. Like the cost of (dry) natgas should be like $1/million BTU; but there's too much pipeline contraints; too much structured debt including by local utilities with guaranteed returns by regulation; too much legacy costs in other energy industries; and many other things including The FED's ZERP policies, I could go on and on for much storytime :)
I very much appreciate your replies in this thread. Learned something that I've been curious about for a long time.