Jacob Talley

Mellisa Tetterton

English 1200-081

27 April 2012

What the Frack is Going On?

In the past decade, efforts to find new alternatives for the United States current usage of carbon dioxide-emitting fuel sources have increased.  The possible destruction of our o-zone layer and the threat of altering the climate drive a desire to save the planet from the possible repercussions of global warming and have scientists and researchers working hard to figure out more innovative ideas to make the U.S. a “greener” country.  One method in particular, hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has been a big hit throughout the country.  Hydraulic fracturing has gained popularity around the country by offering several positive economic gains including enhancing job availability, boosting the economy, and improving the health of the environment and by infamously attracting copious amounts of negative publicity in the form of contaminated drinking water, natural disasters, and air pollution that could cause numerous harmful diseases and breathing ailments.

            Hydraulic fracturing is the process of pumping thousands of gallons of a mixture of water, sand and chemicals as far as 10,000 feet below the earth’s surface to the Marcellus Shale layer.  The pressure of this mixture fractures the shale by making tiny cracks.  The sand particles then hold the cracks open as the natural gas flows back up the pump and is collected by the company that is running the drill site (ProPublica).  Fracking enthusiasts support the process because of the potential it brings to drastically improve the environment by reducing our emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse agents, decrease our country’s dependence on foreign oil, and provide job opportunities to a struggling economy.

Hydraulic fracturing provides an alternative fuel source that can cut down CO₂ emissions as well as other greenhouse pollutants in the United States.  By decreasing these greenhouse gases, we can quickly turn our global warming issue around in a positive way and prevent further damage to the environment caused by the increasing global temperature.  At the very least, it provides scientists with extra time to discover an affordable method of cutting out greenhouse gases all together.  Methane is a greenhouse gas emitted from natural gas that is also many times more heat-trapping than CO_2.  However, the volume of CO₂ is enormous in the U.S. as it makes up 81.3% of all greenhouse emissions.  The rate is only 1.1% for methane compared to 8.5% based on the global warming potential.  Natural gas burns 30% less CO₂ than oil and 45% less than coal.  Converting to natural gas would greatly reduce the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere because it is so much cleaner burning than our current methods of energy production (Natural Gas).  By doing this, the air quality would increase drastically and provide several health benefits that include healthier lungs and airways. 

            Smog is yet another environmental issue that plagues the big cities in the United States.  Smog along with ground level o-zone can contribute to ailments ranging from temporary discomfort while breathing to permanent damage to the lungs.  Natural gas does virtually nothing to contribute to smog because it releases very low levels of smog causing agents such as nitrous oxides and particulate matter.  It produces 90% less particulates than oil and 99% less than coal.  The integration of natural gas usage into public systems such as electrical generation, transportation, and industrial use would greatly reduce amounts of smog in the country; especially in the summer when natural gas is cheap and amounts of smog are normally great because of the heat.  Acid rain, which is caused by a combination of sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrous oxides and water vapor, would be greatly reduced by replacing coal burning plants with natural gas burning plants.  Natural gas emits barely any SO₂ and 80% less nitrous oxides than coal (Natural Gas).  By switching to natural gas as a fuel source, the amount of smog in areas of heavy population would sharply decrease and the rates of disease and cancer associated with smog would decrease as well.  By doing this, the health of the community is affected in an entirely positive way that makes living conditions better.

            Transportation and industrial uses of greenhouse emitting fuel sources are the largest contributors to air pollution in the U.S.  A switch to natural gas would significantly lower the amount of toxic pollutants being released.  Due to the increased presence of hydraulic fracturing sites, enough natural gas can be harvested to support our energy needs and improve the environment by reducing many of the harmful pollutants being released today.  In particular, switching from the current use of diesel and gasoline to natural gas for motorized vehicles would decrease the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) and CO₂ by 97% and 25% respectively.  The switch would also decrease nitrous oxide production by 60% and other non-methane hydrocarbons by 75% (Natural Gas).  The switch would lead to limiting the damage done by humans to the environment and a big dip in gasoline usage, which would elongate our current supply of fuel and natural resources as a whole.  It would make the U.S. a much more energy efficient and cleaner environmental country.

Not only will fracking clean up the United States environment, it will also reduce our need for foreign oil.  In 2005, petroleum consumption peaked in the U.S. at over 20 million barrels a day.  Since then, due to the success of fracking and other methods, that rate has decreased to 11.8 as of 2010.  Because of the shift from petroleum to alternative fuels taking place, consumption rates and the dependence on foreign eastern hemisphere countries have declined.  Of our net imports, 49 percent come from countries in the western hemisphere, which includes all of North America, South America, and U.S. territories in the Caribbean (EIA).  As the demand for crude oil and petroleum fuel continues to decrease, so will the cost of gasoline, which would help many citizens financially in the process that struggle with the current high fuel costs.  Suddenly, families have a bit more financial wiggle room and can go out and spend more money on leisure activities and simultaneously stimulating the economy in the process.  This will help lead to the end and eventual reversal of the current recession.

            In addition to lowering the country’s dependency on foreign imports, the natural gas industry has stimulated the economy by providing 9.2 million people with jobs of the advanced variety (Energy Tomorrow).  Major companies such as Exxon Mobil and independents such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy, and Anadarko contribute many of the new job opportunities (Kusnetz).  If the oil and natural gas industry was granted access to states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, the development of the Marcellus Shale could cause over one million job opportunities to become available by 2020.  $176 billion have been distributed by the industry in the form of wages to U.S. employees that work in positions such as engineers and geologists and even unexpected occupations such as zoologists and veterinarians.  The industry has also supported the government through paying leases and royalties for production.  These rents have totaled over $100 billion since 2000 (Energy Tomorrow).  This provides a huge boost in the economy to help combat the current recession.

            While there are many great outcomes to be gained by utilizing hydraulic fracturing, the supporters of the practice are met with just as many people that think negatively of the activity.  Those that are against drilling for natural gas claim that fracking causes more air pollution, is responsible for some natural disasters, and that it contaminates drinking water.  While fracking enthusiasts praise natural gas for being able to make the United States a more eco-friendly country, there are those who oppose the industry in itself for doing the exact opposite and harming the environment.  Environmentalists in states like Wyoming, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado have been complaining of the air pollution that the drill sites are causing.  The gases from the well escape from the storage tanks, pipelines and other equipment, and during the drilling process itself.  Environmental regulators in a small rural town in Texas found high levels of benzene, a cancer-causing agent, and claimed that the problem stemmed from all of the drill locations and fuel rigs in the community (Cappiello).  Environment advocates in the Chesapeake Bay area of Virginia videotaped several drill locations with infrared imaging and found that they were not properly managing the sites (Associated Press).  Levels of ground-level ozone were found in the Upper Green River Basin in western Wyoming that exceeded those in other bigger smoggier cities.  In 2009 the environmentalists sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force them to take action in investigating and monitoring the sites for the harmful emissions that were not being controlled.  The EPA responded by placing regulations on hydraulic fracturing that would halt the release of soot and smog-causing pollutants.  Guidelines were also given for better management of containment and other equipment to reduce the amount of leaked gas.  These rules are designed in such a way that actually helps the company save about $30 million every year by selling the gas they collect (Cappiello).  Though the environmentalist have fought and won for tighter regulations, no actual environmental issue has been directly linked to hydraulic fracturing.  Only the management of the sights has come under scrutiny.  The drive to find an alternative fuel source has stifled efforts to ban the practice that provides the new fuel source.

            Citizens who live in areas of heavy drilling have not only had trouble with pollutants, but they have also been faced with extreme adverse environmental effects.  Several regions that are being fracked have reported many occurrences of earthquakes and the blame is pointed squarely at natural gas drillers.  When the millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals hit the shale it blasts cracks in the rock layer and brings in the potential occurrences of earthquakes.  Incidents of fracking-related earthquakes have surfaced in several states including Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas and more.  Braxton County of West Virginia has had eight quakes in 2010 alone (RT).  Due to the vast amount of pump locations in Ohio, the county of Mahoning has experienced 11 unexpected tremors in the last eight months.  All of which occurred just two miles from the drilling region (Downing).  Virginia has had the oddest occurrence of quakes however.  Dominion Power calculated that there would be roughly five events of a 5.5 or higher quake hitting central Virginia in the next 10,000 years.  A 5.8 hit the community in August that shook the entire east coast (RT).  Arkansas, by far, has had a ridiculous 1,000 earthquakes allegedly related to hydraulic fracturing.  Researchers have shut down the operations of two natural gas drilling companies in order to investigate whether or not it has been caused by the actions of the drill sites.  Since the companies have gone offline, seismic activity has reduced in the region, but random tremors have still popped up across the state (Eddington).  There has been extensive investigative research done on the shakes in relation to the drilling operations, yet no definite connections between the two have been discovered.  As much as it seems who the obvious culprit is behind the occurrences, the lack of proof keeps drilling locations up and running.  Without the proper proof, drill sites in other parts of the country will stay open and continue drilling for the energy that our government puts a high priority on. 

            As many cases of natural disasters and air pollution that have been reported, even more water contamination stories have surfaced as a result of hydraulic fracturing.  In 2005, as a part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress excluded hydraulic fracturing from the list of industries that had to comply with Safe Drinking Water Act.  This meant that drilling companies did not have to disclose the exact mixture of chemicals to the public and that the EPA was not allowed to investigate them.  However, in May 2011 President Obama formed the Natural Gas Subcommittee on the Safety of Shale Gas Development.  The team, led by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, works with the EPA and other agencies to make guidelines that ensure the fracking operations are well maintained and environmentally safe (Randle).  High levels of arsenic, glycols, and barium were found in drinking water wells in Pennsylvania in 2009.  The EPA charged Cabot Oil & Gas with several violations and ordered the company to provide homes with fresh drinking water (Lustgarten).  Officials also found that waste water from the pumping in New York was being disposed of in sewage treatment plants.  This operation not only posed a danger for drinking water safety, but also the safety of the workers (Sapien).  In 2009 residents of Pavillion, Wyoming reported that their drinking water had an oily sheen, petroleum odor, and an abnormal coloration.  The EPA quickly came in and began investigating in March of 2009.  Many chemicals were found in many wells such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, methane and 2-butoxyethanol, which is a known hydraulic fracturing fluid.  It was also discovered that waste water was disposed of in the Wind River Formation, which is an Underground Source of Drinking Water by definition under the United States Code of Federal Regulations.  However, because of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the EPA could take no disciplinary action (Johnson).  Although numerous amounts of evidence towards contamination were discovered, the investigation ended, yet again, with no direct connection between the pollution of the water wells and hydraulic fracturing.  After all of the leads and investigative work done on fracking, the process remains just as strong as it did the day it started since no evidence has linked fracking to any wrong doing directly.

            There is no doubt that there is certainly evidence of fracking leading to environmental issues such as water and air pollution and earthquakes.  Government has attempted to regulate it by forming subcommittee to find the safest method possible for these operations and to prevent the incidents that have been reported.  However, until there is a direct link from natural gas drilling to harmful effects on the environment, hydraulic fracturing will continue.  The efforts put forth by our government are extremely important in determining the safety of fracking.  The increased federal focus on the issue will make the process safer and allow us to obtain more natural gas to help our countries energy need and consumption.  Doing so will tremendously help out both our economy and environment.

            Hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new and exciting mystery for our country.  It could help fix an environment that has been ravaged by previous poor decisions, diminish our dependence on foreign fuel sources, and create millions of jobs for our struggling economy.  This would push the U.S. in a very positive direction and put us in a good position to improve our economic and environmental situation.  At the same time, this seemingly wonderful method could also be damaging the air quality, causing strange earthquakes, and making drinking water dangerous to consume.  However, the lack of evidence linking these consequences to hydraulic fracturing has prevented any official action being taken to prevent it.  Until there is quality evidence against natural gas drilling, companies will just continue to frack on and the United States will continue to reap the benefits and possibly suffer from its consequences.