To frack or not to frack? As a question, it's less eloquent than the line from Hamlet, but to the drilling industry, including tricone users and manufacturers, it's far more relevant.
Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is the process of stimulating wells by injecting massive quantities of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure via horizontally drilled wells, often using a tricone.
This injection of material following the tricone drilling produces a fracture in the rock surface and causes gas to flow upwards through the resulting cracks.
After decades of drilling activity and tricone use, most of the oil and gas that was easy to reach has been reached.
What remains is either too isolated or too deep in the earth to procure by conventional means alone, such as drilling with a tricone, making a technique like fracking critical for extracting these reserves.
The issue Horizontal drilling with a tricone and the pumping of water to create fractures would all be for naught if the fractures, which collapse when the pumps are turned off, remain closed.
That's where proppants come in.
Just as the tricone is central to the drilling stage of the process, proppants are a key part of the next step.
These small, crush-resistant particles are carried in to keep the fractures open and allow natural gas to travel to the well.
Although the horizontal drilling with a tricone is not considered problematic in isolation, the controversy arises with the chemicals that are frequently added to the water.
Once the tricone has filled its role, the chemicals are often used to thicken the water and make it more proficient at fracturing and transporting proppants deep into the rock.
The arguments Proponents of fracking would assert that, with or without the tricone, the process is pointless if the fractures are insufficient or the proppants don't arrive where they need to be; hence the need for chemicals.
Those who oppose hydraulic fracturing cite some environmental concerns.
Topping the list is the potential impact of fracking on drinking water, which opponents say could result from a few different scenarios: • The fractures produced by this process may extend further than anticipated, piercing shallow rock that serves as a source of drinking water and causing contamination.
• The fractures might link with natural fractures in the rock that already connect with drinking water supplies.
• Hydraulic fracturing fluids could be accidentally spilled and seep into surface water.
Opposition to fracking stems from both the quantity and quality of chemicals being used.
While early fracturing efforts required only about 750 gallons of fluid, today it can be as high as eight million gallons.
And the more water involved, the more chemicals that are needed in the form of gels and foams containing biocides, diesel fuel, benzene or hydrochloric acid.
Supporters cite the massive quantities of natural gas and oil accessed by fracking and new methods of horizontal well drilling using tricone or other bits.
They also point out that in addition to facilitating new wells, fracking can benefit existing ones by increasing the rate of gas flow, often taking a money-losing well and making it profitable.
The drilling industry is no stranger to controversy.
While some issues are logistical in nature, such as where and how to employ the tricone, others are more complex, touching off philosophical, political or emotional debates.
A few, such as fracking, encompass all three and then some.
Understanding the ins and outs of fracking is a first step in addressing this volatile subject.
But if you're seeking an easy answer for the question "to frack or not to frack", don't hold your breath.
Even Shakespeare would be lost for words.