Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Economics of Public Issues 19th Edition Miller Solutions Manual instant download all chapter
Economics of Public Issues 19th Edition Miller Solutions Manual instant download all chapter
Economics of Public Issues 19th Edition Miller Solutions Manual instant download all chapter
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-of-public-issues-18th-
edition-miller-solutions-manual/
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-today-19th-edition-
miller-solutions-manual/
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-of-macro-issues-6th-
edition-miller-solutions-manual/
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-of-macro-issues-7th-
edition-miller-solutions-manual/
Economics Today 19th Edition Miller Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-today-19th-edition-
miller-test-bank/
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-today-the-macro-
view-19th-edition-miller-solutions-manual/
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-today-the-micro-
view-19th-edition-miller-solutions-manual/
https://testbankdeal.com/product/economics-19th-edition-
mcconnell-solutions-manual/
https://testbankdeal.com/product/living-in-the-environment-19th-
edition-miller-solutions-manual/
Chapter 8
All Fracked Up
Chapter Overview
Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is a rapidly spreading means of extracting natural gas from shale
formations deep below the surface of the earth. The resulting increase in the supply of natural gas has
driven down the price of gas, which in turn has reduced manufacturing and home-heating costs, and
induced substitution away from burning coal. The result has been substantial economic and environmental
benefits. But the process has also raised the specter of earthquakes and contaminated water supplies. This
chapter explores the tradeoffs of the fracking revolution.
Descriptive Analysis
Fracking is the informal name given to the hydraulic fracturing process, in which water, sand, and small
amounts of chemicals are injected deep underground to break rock apart. The process has been utilized in
the oil and gas business since 1947, but its usage expanded rapidly after 1998, when a commercially
feasible means of extracting gas from shale rock located thousands of feet underground was devised. The
process is now widely used in Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and is
spreading to other U.S. states and to other nations. The great promise of fracking is that it can unlock vast
stores of cheap, relatively clean energy. But there is also a downside: the process itself is believed to
cause earthquakes and has been linked to contamination of groundwater. Moreover, the natural gas
produced by fracking, although clean compared to coal and oil, may not be as clean as other energy
sources.
The spread of fracking (and the implied increase in the supply of natural gas) has driven down by two-
thirds the price of natural gas in the U.S., leaving prices here far below those in Europe or Asia. (Large
price disparities between continents are possible because it takes a long time to build the facilities—
specialized tankers or pipelines—appropriate for transporting natural gas in large quantities.) This has
reduced home heating and manufacturing costs, improved the competitiveness of American industry, and
reduced the use of relatively dirty coal as an energy source.
But fracking has also been implicated as a source of earthquakes, and there are reports of groundwater
contamination by the gas flowing up from fracking wells. In addition, the process uses about five million
gallons of water for each well, and causes a surge in heavy-truck traffic for the several weeks that it takes
to drill a well.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, fracking wells do have the potential to cause
earthquakes, as do all oil and gas well drilling operations. But the quakes created are small and far below
ground, and thus have little potential for harm to humans or structures. The potential for groundwater
contamination due to fracking operations is also small. It is, in any event, possible to eliminate altogether
with the application of well-known, standard drilling techniques. As the Environmental Defense Fund
notes, “The groundwater pollution incidents . . . have all been caused by well construction problems”
rather than by anything inherent in the fracking process.
Roughly 80 percent of the water used in the fracking process remains underground, with the rest coming
up as return flow. Much of this “flowback” water is now being recycled for use in fracking other wells,
although where appropriate, some is simply sent through ordinary wastewater plants for treatment and use
in agricultural or commercial operations. In any event, the firms doing the fracking pay for all of the
water they use.
Some observers have expressed concern about the amount of fracking water left underground—after all,
water is a scarce resource. Some basic chemistry helps put this apparent “loss” of water in perspective.
The combustion of natural gas produces carbon dioxide and water—lots of water. In fact, in just six
months, burning the gas from a well will replace the water used in drilling it. Of course, this new water is
in a different place—but so too is the water you flush down the toilet. Overall, the chemistry of
combustion implies that fracking adds water to the hydrological cycle.
Some communities were initially surprised by the volume of truck traffic generated by fracking
operations and the potential for damage to roads not constructed to handle heavy trucks. But communities
relatively quickly have responded through the permitting process to place limits on truck traffic and to
require firms to pay for the damage they do to local roads.
Fracking, like all other natural gas production methods, causes the release into the atmosphere of
methane, believed to be a potent greenhouse gas. But the natural gas from fracking has primarily
displaced coal as an energy source, and natural gas causes the release of much less carbon dioxide than
does coal. On balance, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates than fracking has resulted in a
reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, burning natural gas yields far less air pollution
than does burning coal, so the overall environmental benefits of fracking appear to be substantial.
In addition to the tradeoffs involved in fracking, there is an interesting property rights issue, which helps
explain widely divergent attitudes toward the process on the two sides of the Atlantic. In the United
States, the rights to minerals under the surface (oil, gas, gold, and so forth) most commonly belong to
whoever owns the land. The landowners can thus lease or sell these mineral rights to oil, gas, or other
exploration companies. And in the case of oil and gas, those leases are extraordinarily lucrative. In
Europe, as elsewhere in the world, mineral rights belong not to the landowners, but to the central
government. The practical implications of this difference in property rights are enormous. In America,
landowners are richly rewarded for the nuisance of having exploration and production take place on their
property. In Europe, the landowners would get nothing if oil or gas were found under their lands—but
would have to endure every bit as much nuisance as American landowners. It is little wonder then that
people in Europe are much more likely to adopt an attitude of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) when it
comes to fracking.
Chapter Answers
1. We suspect that there would be substantial opposition to allowing strangers to farm one’s land:
Substantial costs would be incurred, with no offsetting benefits.
2. For some elements of fracking, it seems clear that local regulations are likely to be the most
efficient. All of the nuisance and hazards of truck traffic accrue locally, as does the potential risk
of groundwater contamination. Localities are likely to know best, and be most likely to respond
to, the concerns of their citizens regarding these matters. Methane gas emissions are likely to
have much broader impacts that are likely to be of concern chiefly to people who live outside the
area where the gas is produced. Hence, any regulation of these emissions might be better done at
the national level.
3. Natural gas is a substitute for coal (as a source of energy) and insulation (which conserves
energy). The fracking-induced decline in the price of natural gas has benefitted consumers of
energy (they get to consume more, at lower prices), and at the same time has lowered the wealth
of coal and insulation producers, by reducing the demand for their output. Natural gas is a
complement for meat (which can be cooked on natural-gas-fired grills) and lightweight clothing
(which can now be worn indoors in the winter instead of heavy wool clothing). Consumers of
meat and lightweight clothing are made better off, as are the producers of these goods.
4. Fracking, like coal mining, is a manufacturing process with some substantial local disamenities
(such as heavy truck or train traffic). Individuals in Pennsylvania are accustomed to such factors
as part of the price of the prosperity that comes from the manufacturing process. New Yorkers are
not. Hence we expect more opposition to fracking in New York than in Pennsylvania, which has
indeed been the case. Most of the apparent benefits of fracking show up in localities (in the form
of greater employment opportunities and royalty payments). Although urban areas benefit, it is in
the form of lower gas prices, which urban residents may not tie directly to fracking per se.
5. If landowners in Europe were allowed to capture some of the royalties associated with fracking,
we predict that opposition to the process would diminish—in direct proportion to the amount of
royalties.
6. If substantial natural gas shipments commence, the demand for Russian gas will decline, reducing
the price of Russian gas and thus the wealth of the owners of Russian gas. Such shipments would
also tend to raise gas prices in the United States, making consumers here worse off (but owners
of mineral rights better off) than if such shipments were infeasible due to economic or political
reasons.
Ja Vihtori ei ollut kuulevinaan, sen kun toimitti, että aina noin parin
viikon päästä olisi hyvä kastella sitä lantakasaa. Virtsakaivoon on
laitettava pumppu, jonka avulla tämä kasteleminen virtsavedellä
voidaan ilman sen suurempia puuhia toimittaa. Se näet se
kasteleminenkin osaltaan järjestää sitä palamista, jotta se voi
kohtalaisesti tapahtua, niin että koko lantakasa multineen päivineen
muodostuu oikein hyväksi ja voimakkaaksi lannaksi. Ja siihen ne
sopii yhteen paikkaan koota hevoslannat, sianlannat ja kaikki,
myöskin makkilanta, koska sekin siinä yksillä vaiheilla sattuu
olemaan. Sitä kun ollaan näin tarkkoja tässä lannan kokoomisessa ja
hoidossa niin saadaan ruveta taas viljelyksiäkin syventämään ja
laajentamaan. Tuokin? Lakeisniitty sietäisi jo tulla käännetyksi, eipä
se sellaisenaankaan enää mitään tuota, päätteli Vihtori.
Ja sillä aikaa sai naisväki talon kaikki asiat hoitaa sekä työt
toimitella. Ja vaikka ei Anna-Leenan, Taavetin muijan, ymmärryksen
juoksu suinkaan ollut niitä tyhmimpiä, oli kuitenkin varsin
ymmärrettävää, että talo vähä-vähältä alkoi rapistua ja huonota.
Varsinkin kun ei lapsilaumaankaan ollut sattunut ainoatakaan poikaa
siunautumaan. Ja kun Taavetti sitten keväisin palasi kotiin
muutamaan kymmeneen ruplaan nousevan säästönsä kera, oli siellä
aina säännöllisesti häntä vastaanottamassa puute, — olipa toisinaan
sillä välin perheen suulukukin taas yhdellä lisääntynyt. Tuo pieni
kertynyt säästö tarvittiin hyvinkin makeasti leivän ja elintarpeiden
hankkimiseen. Ja niukin naukin se juuri uutisen rajaan riitti, — eipä
aina niinkään, ja silloin karttui kauppiaan kirjoihin lisää numeroita.
Peltojen parantamisesta ja talon korjaamisesta ei uskaltanut
untakaan nähdä.
Kuosmasen kaalikset.
Ei siihen emäntä mitään osannut, tunsi kai asian niin olevan. Läksi
kyökkiään kohden ja kutsui vieraita turnusmaalta palatessa kahville
poikkeamaan.
"Maahenki".
Oli hän silloin ollut näyttämäisillään sille, missä oikeus on. Veret
sävähtivät kasvoille, luinen nyrkki jo ovenpieliä tapaili, mutta sentään
hän luontonsa vangitsi, ei isän jättämää taloa tahtonut tappelulla
hävittää.
Läpi kotihaan kävi polku, nousi kiertäen yli Linnakallion, sitten läpi
etumetsän painui korven laitaan, edelleen poikki pienen Koveroisten
suon, missä monet muuramen kukat entisiä paimenaikoja
muistuttivat. Tuossa on oja… oli siihen kerran vanha Kirjo hukkua…
tässä poluntaipeessa tuo suuri kivi, jonka toisella sivulla olevassa
pienessä luolakuopassa monet sateet oli pitänyt…
Nyt oli hän jälleen ladossaan, vieläpä oli levähtääkin ehtinyt. Ja nyt
korpeen!
Tämä oli tarina siltä ajalta, jolloin maa veti enemmän kuin ilma —
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MAAHENGEN
USKOSSA ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.