Watch the Fracking PR

One of the most controversial and heated debates in the oil and gas energy industry today is hydraulic fracturing, known commonly as “fracking.” The term refers to pumping pressurized water or sand into existing open fissures underground in order to ease the flow of oil to the surface for extraction and use. A search of the term on the internet will lead to a plethora of online sources to peruse and lead you scratching your head to make tails of it.

 

How fracking works for natural gas extraction. The principle is similar for oil extraction.

 

Companies involved in and proponents of the technology clearly state that it is a proven and safe method for extracting an important resource. The distance from major population centers an advantage that poses very small threat to human populations. Opponents meanwhile, offer the alternate view that the process poses great risk to contaminating groundwater sources and possible disturbance of natural subsoil conditions that could aid in increased seismic activity. The groundwater contamination issue seems more valid a case considering that fracking includes pumping a variety of chemicals (most beyond the average person’s phonetic skill) that are known carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. Long-term affects to both vegetative and wildlife remain potent. Both sides of the debate are substantiated from credentialed experts – some in the respective fields for whole careers. Do they not know the truth? Where does one turn to find the information necessary for making a sound and informed viewpoint on the topic? You might try paying regular attention to one of many public relations watchdog websites available such as “PR Watch.”

 

The Center for Media and Democracy publishes, among other sites and publications, the online website entitled “PR Watch.” This site is a portal to a vast amount of news, links, and investigative reported articles that serve to illuminate, educate, and keep one generally informed. The purpose of the site is to expose “corporate spin and government propaganda” and the group qualifies itself by not accepting any funding from for-profit corporations or grants from government. Its writers and researchers compose a group of seemingly qualified individuals representing various topics and issues. The organization formed in 1993 in Madison, Wisconsin, by founder John Stauber who led the group until 2009.

 

Center of Media and Democracy's "PR Watch" home page.

 

For Utahns, a state rich in natural subsurface resources such as oil and gas – and for that matter, anyone in a state rich in oil and gas deposits – the topic of fracking is controversial and complex. For a state so wealthy in oil shale and natural gas, it is quite understandable how its governmental leading agencies and industry representatives are steered toward keeping a harmonic balance to assure a long economic health to its citizenry. No one singular energy resource is favored over another; the balanced wholistic approach is the regulatory mantra. Fossil fuel energy is inexpensive in Utah. Economic stability is rock steady as well, and for good reason. The two are inextricably linked. With respect to fracking, to abolish the practice entirely would cripple energy production. Can any of us honestly admit we could live without gasoline in our vehicle? How about living without the power that keeps your furnace or hot water heater working? And to expand your moral circle further, how about the many issues our world continually faces – such as basic water, food, medicine, and housing needs -- on virtually every continent?

 

Despite the good economic news in Utah and the seemingly improbable end of 100% fulfillment of basic needs globally, the fracking controversy is not lightening any time soon, even in Utah. A recent The Salt Lake Tribune article  illustrated some of the oft-forgotten aspects to the process. This entrenched debate is not unlike the topic of government-controlled lands being accessible for energy developers, a possibility that threatens large areas of great natural beauty reserved for tourism and nature lovers of all sects. No matter how one attempts to slice the issue into manageable segments, there is always a positive aspect to balance the negative, a yin for every yang.

 

Online image of March 3, 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune article on fracking.

 

Public relations spin watchdogs and their sites such as PR Watch, also have a yang to their yin. How is it possible to have completely neutral, unbiased, and non-opinioned people behind packaging a resource? My skeptical stance would conclude that groups such as this, despite all the openness in explaining their approach and values, will also carry an agenda that not everyone may agree with; but don’t misconstrue their value. I favor an indiviidual’s choice to procure and assess information, and I promote organizations that clearly define that as their mission through non-biased and informative presenting of facts, as well critical thought.

 

But just as the expression goes in shopping—in this case information shopping—“buyer beware.”