Tag Archives: Royal Dutch Shell

Et tu, Nat Geo?

The use of hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas from the earth dates back to the 1940s, but only in the past few years has “fracking” become an energy buzzword, alluding primarily to the shale gas boom in the United States and all of the controversy that has accompanied it. Fracking—the high-pressure injection of water, chemicals and sand into shale deposits to release the gas and oil trapped within the rock—in recent years has been combined with horizontal drilling and other improvements in technology to harvest stores of gas and oil that previously were thought commercially unfeasible to access. (See interactive: “Breaking Fuel from the Rock“)  The implications of this sea change are debatable, but the impact is undeniable. In the United States, oil production last year reached its highest level in 14 years, thanks in part to output from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale, and is expected to keep rising. Natural gas production, already at new highs thanks to shale gas, is expected to grow 44 percent in the U.S. between 2011 and 2040. (See “Natural Gas Nation: EIA Sees U.S. Future Shaped by Fracking.“)

National Geographic and Shell Oil company?

A recent article in National Geographic (on-line) captured my attention this morning. Specifically the author’s phrase, “…windfall of homegrown energy.” Considering the traditional natural science orientation of the publication, I was surprised that the article skipped over the relationship between earthquakes and fracking as well as the damage done by toxic waste released through hydraulic fracturing above and below ground.  It also left out the multi-billion dollar investments by China and other countries into fracking operations in the United States, as well as the recent $15.1 billion dollar acquisition by China of Canada’s leading petroleum producer AND China’s purchase ($2.1 billion) of Canada’s oil sands producing entity OPTI Canada Inc.

Given China’s environmental record, the quality of drinking water in the United States and Canada is at risk in both near and long-term.

The Federal Government and the State of Alaska are still working on settling $92 million dollars in damages from the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil disaster.  As I write there is still oil on beaches affected by this spill and neither state or federal governments can collect damages from a multi-national oil company twenty years later.   With an industry track record like this who can honestly believe that there will be any significant accountability (or remediation) once ground water contamination from fracking is documented?

Wyoming currently has an estimated 20,000 abandoned, uncapped wells which were used in fracking which represent billions of gallons of fresh water and  hundreds of miles of roads cut into wilderness1.  Now that the rape of the land is complete, who or what will attempt even minimal repair of our land?

The cornucopia view promulgated by fracking proponents is that of a boundless, infinite, self-replenishing view of the natural world.  This naive concept was a fundamental basis in Marxist economic theory. This same Marxist notion is now advanced by petroleum interests as part of their public relations program. It is also a flat-out, bald-faced lie.

The irony of National Geographic’s masthead is patent:
“National Geographic: Inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888″

There are three articles in the English language: the, a, and anThe is a definite article, referring to a specific noun (e.g. “the planet”) which connotes separation and distinction from the self and that other object.  Our is a possessive pronoun indicating ownership (e.g. “our planet”).

National Geographic’s choice of words is a distinction engineered for a calculated difference.  Through the deliberate use of  “the” when referring to environmental issues, a conceptual schism is created with regard to our biosphere:  “the planet” is fundamentally different from “our planet”.

The question becomes has National Geographic joined Shell’s public relations pulpit or was this article simply a naïve lapse in critical thinking?

Peter Terezakis
San Diego, 2013
1-percent-are-killing-our-planet