An Isse of Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, is the process of drilling deep into the earth and releasing a high-pressure water mixture into the rock to release natural gas within. This natural gas is a fossil fuel containing hydrocarbon gas, methane, and often other chemicals. Natural gas is commonly used as a source of energy for electricity generation, heating, and cooking, and has proven to release far fewer greenhouse gases in comparison to common fuel sources such as coal or oil. (BBC, 2015)

        The fracking process often involves the use of three different drilling rigs. The first rig drills below the water table, which is the level below which the ground is saturated with water. The second rig, built especially to handle high pressure should it encounter pockets of gas, follows the first. Lastly, the third rig drills the horizontal part of the well. (Bamberger, 186)

After this, the rock is fractured to release the natural gas. At this point, approximately five million gallons of fluid, which contains mostly water but also many different chemicals, as well as large amounts of silica sand, are injected into the well under very high pressure. The pressure fractures the rock, with the silica sand keeping the opening from resealing, and natural gas flows out of the formation. (Bamberger, 187)

To some, fracking may sound like a new, futuristic creation. However, obtaining natural gas through this method was first used as far back as 1947, when an experimental well was fractured in Hugoton, Kansas, atop a massive natural gas field. This event had proven hydraulic fracturing was not only possible, but also productive. Two years later, on March 17, 1949, the first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing was performed about twelve miles east of  Duncan, Oklahoma. The same day, another well was successfully fractured near Holiday, Texas. (AOGHS)

By the year 1988, the fracking method had become greatly widespread, and had been used nearly one million times. During this decade, a major technological advance in shale fracturing took place, which led to the United States vastly increasing its natural gas production, and the process continues to be widespread to this day. (AOGHS)

Fracking has proven to be a generally reliable source of energy, and is believed to release much fewer pollutants into the air, unlike other fossil fuels such as coal. So why could such an apparent lifesaver for the energy industry prove so controversial? Not only that, but why do some people believe that hydraulic fracturing is the best choice for energy production apart from coal, but others think it is far from worth the damage it causes to people and the environment?

After researching the topic, the conclusion was reached that fracking, while having its apparent good sides, is harmful to people's health, daily lives, and often livelihoods, as well as harmful to the environment due to the emissions it causes. Hydraulic fracturing also poses a problem due to lack of government control and regulations over the process, as well as large corporations often being in control of the procedure. Both of these issues could possibly be part of the reason health issues and harm to the environment are so hard to control, or even prove, when fracking is appears to almost certainly be the cause.

In order to address the controversy of fracking and the two sides of the debate, the first question one might ask could be, why would someone support fracking? What would the supporters' argument for keeping and possibly increasing use of the technique? The second question would be, how would an anti-fracking activist counter said argument?

One argument in support of fracking, would be the aforementioned reduced air pollution. Natural gas releases around half the amount of carbon emissions that are released when coal is burnt. (CarbonBrief, 2013) Since coal is a massive source of air pollution in the world, fracking does prove to be helpful in that it has the potential to reduce coal's carbon emissions.

However, fracking is not without its own emissions. Once a well is drilled for hydraulic fracturing, natural gas is able to flow naturally up to the surface, where it is captured. However, some of this gas, mostly methane, can escape into the atmosphere. Leaks such as these are called fugitive emissions, and can also occur if pipes or other equipment are broken or damaged. (Prud'homme, 90)

While fugitive emissions are hard to measure, and researchers disagree on the exact numbers, it was estimated in a 2011 study by Robert W. Howarth that three point six percent to seven point six percent of the methane from shale gas production escapes into the atmosphere and leaks over the lifetime of a well. (Howarth, 2011) This is around double the amount released by traditional gas wells. In the case that Howarth's study is correct, hydraulic fracturing is more polluting than oil or coal. (Prud'homme, 91)

However, Howarth's study alone is not enough to go by, and it has been heavily criticized by the energy industry, and by those who disagree with how the study was performed. One of these people was his Cornell associate Lawrence Cathles, who has stated that the study was seriously flawed. (Prud'homme, 91) Howarth's study is not the only one on the subject, however, as a study published by the EPA in 2012 showed that emissions are instead around two point two percent, and a 2013 study reduced the figure even more, to one point five percent. (Prud'homme, 92)

Despite the number being proven to be this small, fugitive emissions still have consequences. A study of the air in DISH, Texas revealed the air to contain elevated levels of benzene, xylenes, naphthalene, and disulfides, all of which are harmful chemicals. These chemicals were then all traced back to fracking sites. (Prud'homme, 92)

In Garfield County, Colorado, similar emissions increased thirty percent from 2004 to 2006, and during this time there were a large amount of health complaints from residents in the area. These complaints ranged from headaches and nausea to pituitary and adrenal tumors. (Prud'homme, 92) While this evidence may seem indisputable, there are in fact very few studies, if any at all, proving that hydraulic fracturing emissions caused these problems; however, this lack of information may be a problem in itself.

Another argument for the pro-fracking side would be its wide range of locations optimal for the process, especially in North America. The continent is very rich in natural gas, and as of April of 2016, twenty-one states in the USA contain a significant supply, and have employed and continued to use hydraulic fracturing as a means of harvesting the resource. Of the remaining states, five more states plan on beginning fracking soon. Eighteen more have no or too few resources to make substantial profit from fracking, and in Kentucky and Tennessee, fracking is allowed, but impractical and not the main method. The remaining four states, all of which are on the East Coast, have banned fracking in the entire state, and local bans exist in eleven of the states which allow for fracking. (Hijiri, 2015)

  When given such a large range of viable drilling areas, fracking can produce very large amounts of natural gas for energy use. While hydraulic fracturing is not the only means of obtaining natural gas, since it became a commercially viable process in the late nineties, fracking has gone from supplying seven percent of the US's natural gas to sixty-seven percent in just sixteen years. According to the US Department of Energy, as of 2015, a total of twenty-nine percent of consumed energy in the country comes from natural gas, making the resource the second most widely used resource, the first being petroleum. This shows that the US has come to depend on natural gas, and if it continues to do so, a large supply will be consistently needed-- a large supply which hydraulic fracturing can apparently provide.

A very common argument against the use of fracking would be the possible health impacts. As mentioned above, residents of areas near fracking sites have made long lists of complaints, including but not limited to nosebleeds, dizziness, blackouts, nausea, headaches, and muscle spasms. (Fox, Gasland) One specific reported incident occurred in 2001. That year, in Silt, Colorado, a gas well being fractured near Laura Amos's home blew out, and her water supply was contaminated with 2-BE. Later, Amos developed a rare adrenal-gland tumor, and state regulators fined EnCana, the operator of the well. (Prud'homme, 93)

The company disputed the charge but did not fight it in court. Other regulators said that hydrofracking was not the cause, and joined EnCana in claiming that the 2-BE apparently causing the tumor came from household cleaning products. Five years later, Amos accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement from EnCana, who bought her property, and signed a nondisclosure agreement, and has since refused to discuss the case further. (Prud'homme, 93)

This appears to be how many similar cases have ended, with the affected person appearing to have been paid off by corporations, never again speaking of how fracking appears to have caused them health problems. Due to so many cases ending this way, scientists rarely if ever have the chance to officially study the claims thoroughly. Once cases are settled the documents are sealed, and hard evidence is for the most part lost. Meanwhile, industrial groups continue to deny that hydrofracking causes pollution which is harmful to human health. Several research groups have suggested that pressure from these corporations, as well as from the government, have made reporting on fracking difficult, and that reports on the subject have possibly been censored. (Prud'homme, 93) As much as this claim might sound like a conspiracy theory to some, the amount of people paid to cease their claims against fracking make this theory more plausible and more likely.

An additional concern raised by activists is the challenge posed by the disposal of wastewater left over after the fracking process. As mentioned above, hydraulic fracturing involves injecting large amounts of chemical-infused water into the ground through the well, the pressure from which opens the rock and causes the natural gas to be released. However, the fluid used in this process needs to be removed from the ground after it has done its job, as if it leaks into the environment it can cause contamination to drinking water as well as other problems.

Such leaks have been reported relatively recently, such as leakage from trucks transporting the wastewater, and at least some of these are suspected to have been partially or completely intentional. Wastewater from the hydraulic fracturing process can be taken to wastewater treatment plants, but there have been incidences of plants releasing untreated or inadequately treated water back into drinking water sources. One of the above mentioned contamination incidents took place in 2009, near the Monongahela River, which supplies some of Pittsburgh's drinking water. (Bamberger, 190)

This problem has a relatively simple solution. Slightly more advanced treatment facilities do exist, but are not guaranteed to complete the treatment process in its entirety if the effluent isn't fully tested, as is often the case.A recent study showed that treated effluent from a water treatment facility that also processed wastewater contained higher than normal levels of bromide, chloride, and radium-226, despite the wastewater seemingly going through the whole treatment process. (Bamberger, 190)

Wastewater is also used for dust control or for de-icing roads. However, if wastewater is found to contain the wrong chemicals, it cannot be used for purposes such as these. A final option for use of wastewater is injecting it deep into the ground as a means of disposal; however, this method, while widely used, has been reported to cause earthquakes. (Bamberger, 190)

Earthquakes caused by fracking are another reason some activists oppose the process. However, hydraulic fracturing itself is in fact not what causes the earthquakes; the method of disposal of wastewater afterwards is the true cause. These earthquakes have measured a modest, yet significant, three or four on the Richter scale. Earthquakes of this magnitude, while not typically deadly, can still cause damage. One of the most violent earthquake traced back to wastewater disposal was a November 2011 quake in Prague, Oklahoma, which measured a five-point-seven and destroyed fourteen homes. (Bamberger, 191)

While researching the issue of hydraulic fracturing, a few separate questions arose. One such question was, does fracking worsen climate change? The following was also speculated; if fracking worsens climate change, how does it do so, and if it does not, how does the process avoid doing so?

One supporting argument for the use of hydraulic fracturing is that its product, natural gas, contains little to no carbon dioxide, a substance commonly known to operate as a greenhouse gas and pollute the air when released into the atmosphere. Natural gas has been proposed as a possible substitute or replacement for coal or oil, both of which can produce large amounts of carbon dioxide-heavy emissions. However, as mentioned above, natural gas contains large amounts of methane, and methane can escape into the atmosphere and serve as a different type of pollutant entirely. Methane is said to be a cleaner fuel, as it releases more energy per carbon dioxide molecule than is released by oil or coal. (Bamberger, 175)

However, not typically taken into consideration are other greenhouse gas emissions frequently released during any part of the process, including drilling, fracturing, or production phases. The possibility for leakage during the distribution phase is also not often considered. Methane has been found to have up to thirty-three times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide on a hundred-year scale, so leakage of methane is an important issue which needs to be addressed, and fracking, and the use of natural gas in general, can and does contribute to climate change alongside oil and coal. (Bamberger, 175)

Another question that came to mind was, does fracking harm or threaten animals? Put simply, the various emissions fracking causes can and do harm wildlife in multiple ways. In similar fashion to the health issues reported by people in areas around fracking sites, health issues in animals were frequently reported as well. Among reported issues in farm animals alone were high rates of stillborn calves after exposure to contaminated water, unexplained rashes developing in horses, and cows failing to or having difficulty reproducing. Many farm animals who have been exposed to fracking waste and/or emissions became so sick they needed to be euthanized as a result. (Bamberger, 2)

Health issues in wild animals were also observed. For example, deer appeared to be exposed to contaminated wastewater from wells, the same way cows, horses, and other farm animals were. While the deer were not as easy to observe as domesticated animals were, a witness of these effects of fracking reported two men who routinely hunted near and on her farmland, both before and after hydraulic fracturing was implemented on the land. At one point, the men shot, cooked, and ate a large deer on the property, and soon after became ill with diarrhea and vomiting, along with their friends with whom they shared the meat. The landowner herself had meat from other deer in her freezer and attempted to have it tested. However, she was told the meat belonged not to her but to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and due to the lack of documentation of the source of the meat, she found herself unable to have the meat tested. As with many others believed to have been affected by hydraulic fracturing and its emissions, the landowner was left with no hard evidence of the effects, and in the end had anecdotal evidence alone. (Bamberger, 117)

Due to lack of definite research, at present, these issues are just as anecdotal when reported in animals as they are in humans. However, despite the current lack of definite proof, the relation between fracking and health issues in both animals and humans is still a large possibility, and the possibility is too great and too present to be completely discarded.

Hydraulic fracturing, a widely implemented method of obtaining natural gas, is widely believed to be a cleaner source of obtaining energy in comparison to methods of harvesting coal and oil. Natural gas itself, while another nonrenewable source of energy, releases much fewer pollutants into the atmosphere. Nonetheless, hydraulic fracturing, as a means of obtaining natural gas, shows large amounts of evidence of harming human life, harming animal life, and contributing to climate change, all by releasing methane and other chemicals during drilling, fracturing, and production phases, as well as by leakage during distribution. If natural gas is to progress any further as a widespread source of energy, many have come to believe that the process of hydraulic fracturing, will either have to be much more heavily regulated to prevent such emissions, or will need to be replaced altogether.

Cite this page