Where Fracking Is a Curse

Concerns about fracking, including in this oil field in the Southwestern Los Angeles neighborhood of Baldwin Hills, triggered the state to pass a law regulating the practice last month.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Patrick Reis
Oct. 30, 2013, 3:58 p.m.

Frack­ing has been a boon to the na­tion­al eco­nomy, but the na­tion­al eco­nomy doesn’t buy gro­cer­ies.

Gro­cery bills, just like pay­ing rent or mak­ing payroll, fall to in­di­vidu­al fam­il­ies and busi­nesses, just as pav­ing streets and build­ing schools falls to loc­al com­munit­ies. And while frack­ing’s nat­ur­al-gas boom has left some people — and some com­munit­ies — flush with the cash they need to pay their bills, for oth­ers frack­ing has made life all the more dif­fi­cult.

Such is the case in east­ern Ken­tucky, a hard­scrabble swath of coal coun­try that has long teetered on the brink of des­ti­tu­tion. Now, an in­flux of cheap nat­ur­al gas, com­bined with an ava­lanche of new reg­u­la­tions from Wash­ing­ton, is threat­en­ing to send it over the edge.

Kentucky's Coal Depedency National Journal

Ken­tucky is the third-largest coal-pro­du­cing state in the na­tion, trail­ing only Wyom­ing and West Vir­gin­ia, but the in­dustry has fallen on hard times in re­cent dec­ades. Twenty years ago, Ken­tucky’s an­nu­al coal out­put totaled more than 150 mil­lion short tons. By 2011, the last year for which the fed­er­al En­ergy In­form­a­tion Ad­min­is­tra­tion had fi­nal data, that total had fallen by a third.

A strug­gling coal in­dustry is not unique to Ken­tucky; pro­duc­tion totals have leveled off across much of Ap­palachia.

In oth­er Ap­palachi­an states, however, coal’s struggles have been off­set by a bur­geon­ing nat­ur­al-gas in­dustry, where new frack­ing tech­no­lo­gies have al­lowed gas drillers to de­vel­op gas out of the Mar­cel­lus Shale form­a­tion. In neigh­bor­ing West Vir­gin­ia, for ex­ample, gas pro­duc­tion is rising so quickly that state of­fi­cials are hop­ing to use the res­ult­ing tax rev­en­ue to pull their state out of its dire poverty.

But through a cruel con­flu­ence of geo­logy and geo­graphy, the shale boom is likely to leave Ken­tucky be­hind.

The Mar­cel­lus form­a­tion stretches across West Vir­gin­ia, but — as if by design — it makes a cook­ie-cut­ter neat stop at the Bluegrass State’s bor­der. Con­sequently, West Vir­gin­ia is pro­du­cing four times as much gas as Ken­tucky, and there is little evid­ence that Ken­tucky will catch up.

As of 2011, Ken­tucky had 41 bil­lion cu­bic feet in proven shale gas re­serves, which sounds prom­ising un­til one con­siders that West Vir­gin­ia is sit­ting on more than 6 tril­lion.

Un­able to change their geo­logy, Ken­tucky’s state and coal in­dustry of­fi­cials have trained their fo­cus on coal’s oth­er ma­jor chal­lenge: the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion.

In the pres­id­ent’s push to green the na­tion’s en­ergy sec­tor, coal has of­ten been on the re­ceiv­ing end of some of the toughest reg­u­la­tions. Shortly after tak­ing of­fice in 2009, Pres­id­ent Obama and then-En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency Ad­min­is­trat­or Lisa Jack­son im­posed tough­er stand­ards on moun­tain­top re­mov­al and oth­er sur­face coal min­ing. Up­com­ing EPA green­house-gas reg­u­la­tions for power plants also threaten the in­dustry, as coal is among the most car­bon-in­tens­ive power sources.

Those reg­u­la­tions, more than the frack­ing boom, are threat­en­ing coal, in­dustry ad­voc­ates say.

“Our in­dustry is fine to com­pete against nat­ur­al gas. We have throughout our ex­ist­ence,” said Bill Bis­sett, pres­id­ent of the Ken­tucky Coal As­so­ci­ation. Bis­sett said coal has more long-term price sta­bil­ity than nat­ur­al gas, and that it would do fine in a “fair play­ing field” free of ex­cess reg­u­la­tion.

And as for a comeback to raise east­ern Ken­tucky’s eco­nom­ic tides, “the first thing we have to do is find a mar­ket,” Bis­sett said. “A place [where] that coal we have in the ground in east­ern Ken­tucky can be sold.”

Such cus­tom­ers, however, are primar­ily coal-fired power plants, and those may soon be­come harder to come by, as old plants are re­tired and util­it­ies make de­cisions on what types of power to turn to next.

Coal has nev­er been the pret­ti­est of fossil fuels: It con­tains nasty com­pounds and pro­duces nasty by-products, and get­ting it out of the ground re­quires prac­tices that strain the en­vir­on­ment and miners alike. The fuel built its dom­in­ant role in the eco­nomy — it still pro­duces more elec­tri­city than any oth­er source — be­cause it has long been the cheapest.

Now, thanks in part to the de­creased pro­duc­tion costs of nat­ur­al gas, that cal­cu­lus may be chan­ging. The EIA pro­duces an in­dex of the cost-ef­fect­ive­ness of en­ergy from new power plants. Coal has long led that field, but in the agency’s latest pro­jec­tion, which sought to meas­ure which power source would be the most cost-ef­fect­ive for plants com­ing on­line in 2018, its ad­vant­age had been all but eroded by nat­ur­al gas.

Contributions by Amy Harder

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.