For the last fifty or more years, the United States has been concerned about how it would meet its energy dependency domestically without relying on foreign oil and gas. Many environmentally friendly solutions were suggested, including corn ethanol production, solar energy, offshore giant wind turbines, and liquid metal batteries that would store wind and solar energy. Yet, the energy revolution that quietly and effectively revolutionized energy output in the United States was hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” for short. Its efficiency and output is projected to cover US production needs for the next 110 years, but in the process will its environmental damage leave a disastrous footprint for future generations (Debate, 1)?
Fracking is the process used to release gas or oil from the underground shale rock. A mixture of water, sand, and chemicals under high pressure is directed at shale rock deep below the ground (What, 1). The pressure causes fissures in the shale rock causing a release of oil and gas which then climbs back up the shaft to be collected and retrieved at the head of the well. The chemicals that are used include methanol, the BTEX compounds including benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene, diesel fuel, lead, hydrogen fluoride, naphthalene, sulfuric acid, and the list goes on (Kelley, 1). This veritable soup of chemicals contains many carcinogenic compounds that if leaked into the water or air can cause damage to wildlife and humans alike.
In the 1980s, a technological advance in fracturing shale made it possible to economically extract gas and oil from the ground. The first fracking to occur was in Fort Worth, Texas by a company called Mitchell Energy & Development Corp (Shooters, 2). The petroleum industry quickly jumped on the bandwagon where new unexplored profits could be had, and began fracking in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota. Many other states also produced fuel from shale such as New York and West Virginia. In summary, over 20 states are currently using the fracking technique to extract natural gas and oil. There were 61 fracking companies at the start of last year and through consolidations, there are now 41. Ironically, experts foresee only 20 or so fracking service companies in the future because of the drop in gas prices from the fracking itself (Wethe). The price in gas has dropped so much that the profit margin no longer encourages the creation of new companies. Nonetheless, although there are only 41 companies, they produced over 4.78 million barrels per day in 2013. These 41 companies own and operate over 35,000 wells each year in the United States. How does this impact the environment?
When we study the process of fracking, we see that the major substance pumped at high pressure underground at the shale rock is water; huge amounts of water. Over the lifetime of a fracking well, over 5 million gallons of water will be spent. On average the water needed for fracking a well ranges from 2 million to 4 million gallons. This huge amount of water creates concerns about the shortage of fresh water that already exists and the environmental impact on diminished aquatic resources (Fracking, 1). It also follows that the truck transportation of millions of gallons of fresh and chemical waste fluid contributes to the air pollution and the greenhouse effect. Due to public concerns, the companies are now trying to reuse and recycle the wastewater. Some companies recycle the water at the well site while others truck it to a recycling center where they filter, evaporate and distill the remaining wastewater. Still other companies add more water to it to dilute the chemicals and salts and then reuse it for fracking (Fracking, 2). The state of West Virginia offered to buy 1.2 million gallons of wastewater to use as brine to melt ice on the roads. However, the environmentalists were concerned that when it melts, the chemicals will run off into lakes and rivers. To date, the companies are able to recycle about half of the wastewater. The remainder has stayed below or been disposed of in unaccounted ways, such as being dumped into rivers (Fracking, 2). While other wastewater can be reused after going through recycling plants, the wastewater from fracking is unusable due to the contamination from chemicals in it. This is freshwater that is removed entirely from the drinking water supply.
A Congressional Democratic report released in April of this year identified about 750 chemicals of which 29 are known carcinogens used in the water mixture during fracking. The gas companies are continually trying to find ways of disposing the wastewater, but have a cushion of protection in that they are exempt from a federal law that allows their waste not to be considered hazardous. It is this loophole that has kept these companies from the high expense of more in-depth testing for the wastewater’s toxicity. One concern is the amount of gas that is leaked from the well sites. Methane and benzene are released into the air from raw gas that leaks out as well as from the production process. As many as 50 chemicals are detected in the air with 44 of them posing health hazards. Many of the carcinogens that are released are volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides which add to the ozone in the presence of sunlight. The states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Texas have reported that the companies that use fracking contribute the most to ozone forming pollution (Fracking, 3). Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency has generated air pollution standards for natural gas drilling which took effect on January 1, 2015. Compliance of these standards will reduce methane emissions by about 26% and toxic air emissions by 30%. These restrictions on the gas and oil companies will also benefit them by their being able to sell the additional recovered gas and make profits (Fracking, 3).
Other concerns about fracking include the tremors and earthquakes that fracking has generated. Forty small earthquakes of 2.7 on the Richter scale have been recorded in Dallas since the beginning of this year alone. In 2008, over 200 earthquakes were reported in northern Texas (Smith, 1). This volume of earthquakes in this part of Texas is alarming especially because there was only one reported earthquake in 58 years prior to 2008 (Lett, 1). Residents near the wells often find their homes developing foundation issues, cracks in piping and walls, and large drops in property values. The problem of earthquakes is not only relegated to Texas. To date, seven states including Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas have recorded numerous earthquakes in areas that never exhibited earthquakes before and the US Geological Survey has confirmed that these earthquakes have been triggered by the fracking process of injecting water and chemicals deep underground (Smith, 1). To be more specific, it is the related process of injecting wastewater deep underground that is causing these earthquakes. The wastewater left in a used well “snaps the fault planes” which means the faults or cracks within the earth have ruptured and been offset (Faults, 1). Additionally, wells that were abandoned twelve years ago still have the capability of causing faults to rupture and generate earthquakes. Many states have now begun to insist on a moratorium on the creation of new wells to further study the long-term effects on our earth and environment.
With the many negative effects that are being associated with fracking and the environmental concerns, the question remains, why was this process of oil and gas extraction, fracking, initiated and approved by the US government? There are several advantages of fracking including a significant boost to oil production in the United States, the ability to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal, cheaper oil prices for the consumer, and less dependence on oil from abroad and the Middle East. Due to fracking, the manufacturing industry is growing at its highest pace, hiring employees at all levels and contributing their share of taxes and fees to the US government. The drilling leases that the companies sign with the landowners provide substantial additional income to them and communities they drill in. The prices of oil and gas have also fallen due to fracking. Oil is currently 20% lower than it would normally be without fracking. Natural gas has made a nose dive and is 80% cheaper than anywhere else in the world (10 Reasons, 1). This new industry may help the US become energy independent by reducing foreign oil and gas dependence in the Middle East. The CO2 emissions that are normally released from coal have been reduced significantly due to the reduction in coal use, now that domestic oil and gas prices are cheaper. According to drillinginfo, “Our greenhouse gas emissions are at their lowest rate in 20 years” (10 Reasons, 2). This is significant because according to the Environmental Protection Agency, “natural gas electricity produces half the carbon dioxide of coal, less than a third of the nitrogen oxides and 1 percent of the sulfur oxides” (Olsen, 1).
In response to the claims that fracking causes earthquakes, supporters argue that these are low level earthquakes that are inconsequential and, therefore, not a reason to argue against fracking. The other environmental argument about the chemicals seeping into the drinking water and lakes is countered by the fact that the effects are no worse than any previous historical drilling activity. As for the enormous amounts of water that are needed in fracking, it is defended by the fact that the fracking companies use one-one-hundredth of the water supply as compared to the usage rate of livestock which is one fifth of the water supply. In short, our energy needs are great and the current solution--fracking, works based on our current technology. As Olson says, “Shale gas is the most promising natural resource find in decades. We should use it.”
The arguments for and against the use of shale gas and the process of fracking is a complicated and difficult one to decipher. Being environmentally cautious should always play a role in our decision-making because it is our responsibility to protect our world. On the other hand, energy needs must be met and finding a solution that is safe and effective is not always readily available. The use of fracking should be studied and reviewed thoroughly so that all safety precautions are incorporated and the effects on the environment are studied completely before further wells are allowed to be built. Our independence from foreign gas and oil is an honorable goal but it should be met with responsible choices and effective techniques that will not harm the environment we live in.
Sources:
29 May 2015.
Debate, Club. "Is Fracking a Good Idea?" US News. U.S.News & World Report,
2015. Web. 25 May 2015.
"Fracking and Water Consumption." - SourceWatch. Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike, 23 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 May 2015.
Kelley, Michael B. "The 10 Scariest Chemicals Used In Hydraulic Fracking." Business Insider.
Business Insider, Inc, 16 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 May 2015.
"Shooters - A "Fracking" History -." American Oil & Gas History. American Oil & Gas
Historical Society, 19 Apr. 2015. Web. 25 May 2015.
CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 11 May 2015. Web. 28 May 2015.
Olson, Jon. "Natural Gas Is an Energy Solution That Works." US News. U.S.News & World
Report, 28 Nov. 2011. Web. 29 May 2015.
Long?" US Government Says Drilling Causes Earthquakes - What Took Them so Long?
The Guardian, 24 Apr. 2015. Web. 29 May 2015.
Wethe, David. "Half of U.S. Fracking Companies Will Be Dead or Sold This Year."
Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 22 Apr. 2015. Web. 25 May 2015.
"What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial? - BBC News." BBC News. British Broadcasting
Corporation, 27 June 2013. Web. 25 May 2015.
Fracking is bullshit
ReplyDeleteIs this called "Global Weekly" or "Global Every Couple of Weeks?"
ReplyDeleteYou guys aren't being very consistent.
Also fracking isn't bullshit stfu man
This blog is shit, you people are sucky writers and the stuff im reading can easily be seen in an actual newspaper, r u guys middle schoolers or something? because these articles are written like you guys are
Delete