Radical environmental activists have often sought to portray shale energy production as a dangerous and reckless activity that is poorly understood by even those who work in the energy sector. Anyone who has seen shale energy production firsthand knows that this is not the case, as Brian Robson explains in a post on Breaking Energy.

Energy companies in Texas are driving the development of technologies that reduce water usage in the production of our shale energy resources. The Associated Press reported this week that energy "companies using hydraulic fracturing in Texas say they are recycling more water than ever before."
 
The AP cited recent testimony by Texas Railroad Commission Chairwoman Christi Craddick explaining that these successes were due, in part, to recent moves by the Texas Legislature to encourage industry led water conservation efforts. Craddick noted that the recent rule change brought about a cooperative approach intended to allow companies to "be innovative" in their approach to water conservation. This approach has resulted in significant gains in water conservation.

Several weeks ago we examined the new set of talking points that anti-shale activists have used to attack the strong environmental record of shale gas. As we noted then, activists are now claiming methane emissions from shale gas production operations mean that these energy resources are much more harmful than previously thought.

The fact that activists settled on this issue as their latest angle to attack American shale energy was no coincidence. Natural gas is a low carbon fuel and this fact does not sit well with many professional supporters of other more expensive forms of energy. Media outlets were quick to seize on the issue as the "fracking’s Achilles’ heel."

Unfortunately for these handwringing activists and their media cheerleaders, these claims are now coming unraveled. While the idea that natural gas is somehow a climate menace always rang a little hollow, new research is demonstrating just how off base these claims are.

In the spirit of Valentine’s Day, now is the perfect time to show a little love for the overlooked and underappreciated sources of energy that make our modern lives tick. 

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby did just that in his "valentine for fossil fuels" this week. Contrary to the calls by some radical climate activists for Americans "to sever our ties with the fossil fuel industry" through divestment and other measures, Jacoby presents a compelling case that we should celebrate the contributions of the energy industry to our daily lives.

Jacoby points out that "the rise of fossil fuels has led to dramatic gains in human progress — whether that progress is measured in terms of life expectancy, income, education, health, sanitation, transportation, or leisure. Nearly everything that is comfortable and convenient about modern civilization depends on the ready availability of energy." Even the most radical activists understand this, as they "know better than to push people to give up electricity, air travel, computers, or central heating — all of which would vanish without the fossil fuel industry."

An interesting connection was made this week by Forbes contributor Bill Tucker in his article "Its Not The Fracking Making Trouble in Texas". Tucker zeroes in on the anti-vaccination movement and explains that there are common threads among this and other anti-science movements that have taken root in communities across the United States.

According to Tucker, the "anti-vaxxer crowd has on its side nothing except bad science and a lot of emotion…What does that debate have to do with energy? Bad science just keeps appearing everywhere propelled by powerful emotions."

A new line of anti-shale gas rhetoric has emerged from the professional environmentalists in recent months. As other scare tactics have lost their strength, these activists have moved on to methane emissions as the latest threat to humanity.

Stephen Moore writes in The Washington Times that this "methane scare" being pushed by "Big Green" is due to the fact that "almost all of the major air pollutants have declined markedly over the last several decades, so environmental groups need to invent new scare tactics to fill up their coffers. The emissions of lead, sulfur and smog have all fallen by at least half since 1970. The air in major American cities such as Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Chicago are as clean as they've been in many decades. Big Green is running out of things to complain about."

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving credibility to this scare tactic. The EPA recently "announced major new regulations on the emissions of methane into the air from oil and gas production. It calls methane a ‘potent’ pollutant and its new rules would require a 45 percent reduction by 2025 from 2012 levels."

In the public debate over America’s energy future, environmental activists have long claimed that their extreme positions are simply a reflection of the best available science on energy issues. 

This cloak of legitimacy is unraveling as these activists are repeatedly shown to be anti-fossil fuel zealots who are willing to say anything to promote their cause. Simon Lomax of Breaking Energy cast a harsh light on this phenomenon earlier this week in a blog post that explores the abuse and misuse of science by anti-shale energy advocates.

Columnist Margaret Wente of The Globe and Mail authored a great opinion piece this week that compares ongoing efforts to obstruct shale energy production with other trendy causes that have emerged in North America and Europe based on dubious pseudoscience.

Wente notes that "the war on fracking is also entirely ideological" and compares it to the resistance to vaccinations and modern agricultural techniques, such as genetically modified foods. She acknowledges that shale energy, like "any new technology will have challenges", but she notes that "the National Academy of Sciences, MIT, and other bodies with no axes to grind say that fracking is safe. Environmentalists should love it, because natural gas emits far less carbon than oil. Instead, they want to ban it."

A key component of shale energy production made news this week as a group of University of Colorado-Boulder scientists released their findings about the safety of hydraulic fracturing fluid ingredients.

These researchers were studying the fluid that is used to create fissures in shale rock, which are then propped open by sand to allow oil and gas to flow to the surface. This decades old procedure has been safely used more than a million times in the United States. Despite the common usage of this technique, many people do not know that hydraulic fracturing fluid is typically composed of over 99.5% water and sand. The remaining half of a percent includes various components that are added to ensure safe and efficient energy production. 

Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Stephen Moore recently offered commentary on why "Environmentalists Should Love, Love, Love Fracking".

Moore explains that "since 2005, our emissions are down by roughly 10 percent and almost twice that amount on a per capita basis." Trading coal-fired power for electricity from natural gas is responsible for these dramatic reductions. Moore adds, "if we want to reduce carbon emissions further, investing in natural gas is a far more efficient strategy than going all in for so-called ‘green renewable energy’ sources."