Reuters: Level of Risk for Fracking Doesn't Warrant a Ban

From Reuters:

Should oil and gas producers be allowed to hydraulically fracture wells even if there is a small but hard-to-quantify risk to the environment, property and human life?

That is the question politicians, environmentalists, local residents and the media are all grappling with across large parts of the United States, Britain and other countries.

For some environmental campaigners and local residents, the answer is No. Fracking should not be allowed unless and until it can be shown to pose no threat to the environment and human health.

Citing the precautionary principle, they oppose a technique that could contaminate groundwater, trigger earth tremors, and release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, as well as disrupt local communities with construction traffic and industrialise the rural landscape.

For their part, oil and gas producers insist all energy production is associated with some level of risk but fracturing has a good safety record and fears about it are exaggerated.

Who is right? How should politicians, regulators, the media and voters weigh up the costs and benefits associated with fracking for oil and gas production?

Should they even try to do this calculation, or should fracking simply be banned as unacceptably dangerous?

Unfortunately, it is hard to come to an informed and sensible conclusion. The debate over fracking seems to have brought out the worst impulses in politicians, lobbyists, campaign groups and journalists. It has become oversimplified and polarised - fuelling controversy rather than dispelling confusion among readers and voters.

Read the whole article here.

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!
Follow @EnergyNewsBlog