Abstract
As concern grows over the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, implementing policy that protects people and their environment from these potential dangers becomes an essential piece of the renewable energy picture. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the technique of extracting oil and natural gas trapped under ground by injecting a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into the earth with enough pressure to fracture the rock-bed, and allow the oil and gas to be collected [1].
Natural gas is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon and will play an integral role in the future as we transition to renewable energy sources [2]. Despite its benefits, it has been reported that fracking damages air quality, contaminates drinking water, harms, livestock, and causes adverse health effects [3]. There is little research done on the impact of fracking on the environment due to pressure from industry and government, and current regulation does not require companies to release a full list of ingredients used in their fracking fluid – making it difficult to link fracking to suspected cases of contamination [4].
The hydraulic fracturing industry has seen a huge boom in the last 20 years and it is estimated that fracking sites will increase significantly throughout the US in the next few years [5]. Government regulation must be put in place to ensure the process of hydraulic fracturing, and its possible dangers, are transparent and practiced in a way that minimizes harm to surrounding communities. Introduction Natural gas comes from both conventional (easy to produce) and unconventional (more difficult to produce) geological rock formations [6].
Conventional gas has been the focus of the gas industry since it started over 100 years ago [7]. Most of the recent growth in natural gas however, has come from unconventional rock formations [7]. New technologies such as Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have now made the production of unconventional gas economically viable. Hydraulic fracturing is the process by which large amounts of water, sand, and chemicals are injected into hard rock formations, containing trapped oil and gas, to create fractures within the rock.
These fractures then become conduits for the trapped oil and gas to migrate to the surface and be collected [1]. The direct economical benefits from hydraulic fracturing are an increase in energy production, which may lesson or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and an increase in the number of available jobs. The number of people currently employed directly in production and delivery activities was estimated at 198,400 in December 2012, and the total number of jobs supported by the hydraulic fracturing industry reached 600,000 [8].
The supply of natural gas that can be recovered economically – now available due to an increase in fracking technology – could satisfy the country’s demand for natural gas (at current levels) for more than a hundred years [9]. It seems as though hydraulic fracturing is here to stay: natural gas extracted from fracking sites accounted for ten percent of US gas production in 2007, and rose to 30 percent of production by 2010 [10]. There is little indication that this trend will reverse in the near future. Despite the potential benefits that fracking brings, the process used to extract the gas poses significant environmental risk.
There is concern that inadvertent emissions of fracking fluid and trapped gas can damage air quality, contaminate local water sources, harm livestock, and cause adverse health effects like asthma, cancer, and chronic pain [3]. There are no measures to derail these side effects. The gas industry is grossly under regulated; the few regulations that are in place pertaining to fracking actually create loopholes that exempt fracking from environmental protection laws [4]. The purpose of this paper is to call for hydraulic fracturing reform that would set standards to ensure fracking is done in a safe manner.
If hydraulic fracturing is here to stay, as it appears it will be, policy must be put in place to ensure the potential damage to local communities is minimized. Furthermore, regulation should enforce fracking companies to be more transparent and forthcoming about their practices. In this discussion, we will first describe the process of fracking. This description focuses on the initial fracturing stage, the life span of a fracked well, and the process of abandoning a fractured well that is no longer producing. Next we discuss the rise of fracking.
We present here a history of its development, which starts in the 19th century. The most important aspect of its development has been the last decade, which has seen an exponential growth of the fracking industry. We then discuss the why behind its boom. The main reason being that the industry is extremely profitable, coupled with the governments push for domestic energy production, which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We also describe the dangers behind hydraulic fracturing, and the controversy that surrounds it.
We conclude with a solution to mitigate the dangers posed by hydraulic fracturing. The Fracking Process Hydraulic fracturing is a process that produces fractures in rock formations that create conduits for natural gas or oil to migrate and be collected [9]. Fractures are created by injecting copious amounts of hydraulic fracturing fluid, under high pressure, down a wellbore and into the rock formation [1]. The fracking fluid usually consists of water, proppant, and chemical additives that help open and enlarge fractures [11].
The proppants are made up of sand, ceramic bits, or other small particles that help open the fractures and prevent them from healing [11]. Fractures created in this manner can extend several hundred feet or more into the rock formation. Once the fractures are created and the injection process is complete, internal pressure within the rock formation causes the fluid to return to the surface through the wellbore [12]. This fluid is referred to as “flowback” or “produced water” and may contain the added chemicals plus other inadvertently recovered materials such as heavy metals, radionuclides, and hydrocarbons [12].
Flowback is typically stored on site in tanks or open pits before being treated, disposed, or recycled of [13]. The life cycle of a well varies depending on the production rate and the amount of gas present, but on average, a natural gas well can be active for 20 to 30 years. When a well no longer produces, regulations mandate that wells be cemented closed, equipment and structures removed, and the site be reclaimed to blend back into its surroundings [14]. The process of hydraulic fracturing is mostly the same throughout the industry, with only slight variations in the mixture of fluid.
In what follows, we will discuss how the hydraulic fracturing industry has seen a significant boom in the last decade. The Rise of Fracking The process of fracturing rock in oil wells dates back to the 1860’s [15]. In 1930, it was discovered that using acid in the process would help keep the fractures open and increase productivity [15]. What we now refer to as hydraulic fracturing began in the 1940’s when a relationship was found between well performance and treatment pressures [11]. Since then, millions of wells have been stimulated using this process.
An important part of fracking’s development came in the 1970‘s, when traditional gas wells began to decline in production potential [16]. This aroused government to invest in research and development that would realize the extraction of unconventional gas deposits, which was previously thought economically unattainable. Shale rock formations have been known to contain vast amounts of natural gas, but the low permeability of shale has made extraction difficult using traditional fracking methods [16].
Perhaps the most significant development in hydraulic fracturing came in the last decade or so. Two new technologies have combined to make the extraction of unconventional shale gas economical: slick-water hydraulic fracturing, where a high volume of water and additives is used; and horizontal drilling, which can follow the contour of a shale rock formation for nearly two miles [4]. The development of this approach came at a time when US gas production was on a decline (circa early 2000’s) and importing mass amounts of liquid natural gas (LPG) was in the discussion [17].
Subsequent to its application on shale gas deposits, the new technology brought a rapid growth to the shale gas industry that reversed the current decline in production. Shale gas wells in the United States produced 1. 6 percent of all US gas production in 1996. This figure tripled to 5. 9 percent in 2006 and rose to 23 percent in 2010. This growth is predicted to continue with shale accounting for 49 percent of US gas production by 2035 [18]. With government pushing to develop hydraulic fracturing technology, and a dramatic increase in
production over the last decade, it seems as though there is an incentive to increase domestic gas production, and indeed there is. The following will focus on the importance of natural gas, the role it plays in the United States, and why it has grown so considerably in recent years. The Push for Domestic Production Natural gas has multiple applications across all sectors. It is a major source of electricity generation, provides domestic cooking and heating fuel, offers a clean alternative to automobile fuels, plays an important role in the production of fertilizer, and is used extensively in the production of chemicals.
Its is essential to our every day lives. A suitable replacement would not be easy to implement. It’s what we have, what we use, and were sticking to it for the foreseeable future. In fact, natural gas will play an increasingly important role in meeting energy demand in the US. Natural gas is seen as an essential stepping stone on the way to eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. The United States produces about half the amount of oil we consume. We import 50 to 60 percent of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and the Middle East [19].
There are many valid reasons why we would want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the two main reasons being that it compromises national security, and is believed to fund terrorism around the world. But this is the topic of a different discussion. The point here is that there is a strong push in government to minimize this dependency. It is estimated that about 24 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be needed to replace the amount of oil we import per year [20]. Our current production of natural gas falls just under this amount [20].
An effective doubling of natural gas consumption calls for a massive expansion of infrastructure and advances in extraction techniques. As we have seen, this is already taking place. But reducing the amount of oil we import doesn’t fully account for the natural gas demand. The term “Peak Oil” refers to the point at which world oil production will reach its maximum point, and then begin to gradually decline [21]. It is projected that the world will reach peak oil in the next decade. While the production of oil might decline, our energy demand will not.
The US dependence on foreign oil, paired with the peak oil timetable, has put increased pressure on government officials to increase the domestic production of natural gas. Dangers of Hydraulic Fracturing: Behind the Controversy As hydraulic fracturing grows, so too does the concern about its environmental impact. As we mentioned previously, part of the hydraulic fracturing process pushes fracking fluid back up to the surface. As this flowback returns to the surface, some of the fluid and gas may migrate through extended cracks and into the local water supply.
There are numerous reports of drinking water contamination and hydraulic fracturing as a suspected cause [22]. Josh Fox’s 2010 documentary Gasland [23], documents a few of these cases where hydraulic fracturing was suspected. He shows footage of brown, murky tap water igniting as it leaves the faucet, clips of sickly horses that have drank bad water, and interviews people with chronic headaches, muscle aches, and stomach pain all starting after hydraulic fracturing was performed nearby. There have also been studies that link hydraulic fracturing to earthquakes large enough to be felt by people and cause damage.
The Barnett Shale area of North Texas, which has never had earthquakes in the past, has had more than 50 earthquakes since 2008. Although a direct link with fracking has not been found, a University of Texas Study links this seismic activity with the disposal of used fracking fluid underground. The studies scientist explains it this way, “You have an air hockey table, suppose you tilt it, if there’s no air on, the puck will just sit there. Gravity wants it to move but it doesn’t because there friction [with the table surface]. But if you turn the air on for the air hockey table, the puck slips. Faults are the same.
If you pump water in a fault, the fault can slip, causing an earthquake. ” [24] In another case, seismologists at Columbia linked a number of Ohio earthquakes to disposal wells for injecting fracking wastewater [24]. There are several more examples of increased seismic activity after fracking has been done nearby [25]. The controversy doesn’t stop at bad water and earthquakes. Until recently, there has been little research done on the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing. The limited research that does exist has in some cases been doctored to narrow the scope of the study or have negative findings eliminated all together.
In the 1980’s, considering whether to closer regulate the oil and gas industry, Congress turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to research the matter. The EPA study had preliminary reports stating that drilling waste is hazardous and should be tightly regulated, but these findings were eliminated from the final report [13]. More recently, the EPA was quick to state that increased levels of iodine-131 (a radioactive substance used in hydraulic fracturing) in milk and drinking water from Little Rock (Fayetteville Shale) and Philadelphia (Marcellus Shale) was caused by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan [26].
They later changed their minds and said it was actually from cancer patients excreting radioactivity in their urine [27]. The EPA failed to mention the other two likely culprits: nearby nuclear power plants and hundreds of surrounding hydraulic fracturing sites. There are still more instances of industry influence on government. Since government has enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005, oil and gas producers have been exempt from certain regulatory policies of the Safe Drinking Water Act [28]. An example would be the loophole that allows companies to keep their fracking fluid ingredients secret.
This makes it nearly impossible to link cases of water contamination to fracking. The energy industry seems to have a lot of political influence and have largely succeeded in lobbying for flexible drilling regulation. So far. Conclusion It seems apparent that there is a widespread lack of integrity among government officials when it comes to hydraulic fracturing regulation. Government must not let its desire to eliminate its dependence on foreign oil influence a lack of regulation and decision making in the energy sector.
Despite the importance of clean domestic energy, the dangers that fracking poses to the environment may not be worth the risk. There needs to be comprehensive reform that addresses all sectors of the environmental effects caused by fracking. Once these measures are put in place, companies that don’t comply should be harshly penalized. Putting the public and environment in harms way is simply unacceptable. I posit a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing until these measures are put in place, research is conducted by an independent third party on fracking’s environmental effects, and safer drilling technologies have been developed.
References 1. Hydraulic fracturing. (2013). Canadian Mining Journal, 134(4), 40-41. Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com/docview/1365679050? accountid=14749 2. So much nicer than coal; natural gas and the environment. (2011, Aug 06). The Economist, 400, 53. Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com/docview/881488048accountid=14749 3. Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas. Valerie J. Brown. (2007, Feb 11). Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2): A76. Retrieved from www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/ PMC1817691/ 4. Robert W. Howarth, Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder.
(2011, Sep 15) Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop? International Weekly Journal of Science; Nature 477, 271-275. Retrieved from www. nature. com. libproxy. usc. edu/nature/journal/ v477/n7364/full/477271a. html#auth-2 5. Kuuskraa, V. A. (2007, Sep 03). Reserves, production grew greatly during last decade. Oil & Gas Journal, 105, 35-36,38-39. Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com/docview/ 274532752? accountid=14749 6. Hitchin, P. (2011, 01). Can unconventional gas become conventional? Power Engineering International, 19, 12-12,14,16. Retrieved from http://search.
proquest. com/docview/ 859256595? accountid=14749 7. Mohr, S. H. , & Evans, G. M. (2007, Dec 17). Model proposed for world conventional, unconventional gas. Oil & Gas Journal, 105, 46-51. Retrieved from http:// search. proquest. com/docview/274333466? accountid=14749 8. Kevin A. Hassett, Aparna Mathur, Bene? ts of Hydraulic Fracking, Oxford Energy Forum: American Enterprise Institute, April 04, 2013. 9. Michael B. McElroy, Xi Lu, Fracking’s Future, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Magazine, January-February 2013. 10. Coker, M. (2013). Exploiting the natural gas revolution.
Pipeline ; Gas Journal, 240(3), 112-113. Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com/docview/1326775148? accountid=14749 11. Charlez, Philippe A. (1997). Rock Mechanics: Petroleum Applications. Paris: Editions Technip. p. 239. ISBN 9782710805861. Retrieved 2012-05-14 12. EPA launches full-scale probe into hydraulic fracturing process. (2010). Natural Gas Week, Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com/docview/194026511? accountid=14749 13. Ian Urbina (1 March 2011). “Drilling Down: Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process. ” The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
14. Susan Phillips (8 December 2011). “EPA Blames Fracking for Wyoming Groundwater Contamination”. StateImpact Penn-syl-va-nia. WITF, WHYY & NPR. Retrieved 6 February 2012 15. Montgomery, Carl T. ; Smith, Michael B. (2010-12-105). “Hydraulic fracturing. History of an enduring technology” (PDF). JPT Online (Society of Petroleum Engineers): 26–41. Retrieved June 29, 2013. 16. Miller, Rich; Loder, Asjylyn; Polson, Jim (6 February 2012). “Americans Gaining Energy Independence”. Bloomberg. Retrieved June 30, 2013 17. Rogers, Howard. (2011). “Shale Gas- the unfolding story.
” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 27, number 1, 117-143. 18. Energy Information Admnistration. (2012). AEO 2012 Early Release Overview. Eia. gov. Retrieved 7/2/13. From http://www. eia. gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er%282012%29. pdf 19. Ganos, Todd. (2012). “Breaking U. S. Dependence On Foreign Oil. ” Forbes, Investing. Retrieved 7/1/2013 from http://www. forbes. com/sites/toddganos/2012/01/03/breaking-us-dependence-on-foreign-oil/ 20. Study details how U. S. can lessen foreign oil dependency. (2006). Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(6), 29. Retrieved from http://search.
proquest. com/docview/194230219? accountid=14749 21. Rebecca Lefton, Daniel J. Weiss. (Jan 13, 2010). “Oil Dependence is a Dangerous Habit. ” Retrieved from: http://www. americanprogress. org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/ oil-dependence-is-a-dangerous-habit/ 22. Joseph D. Ayotte et al. (August 2011). “Trace Elements and Radon in Groundwater Across the United States, 1992-2003”. U. S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 25 May 2012. 23. Fox, Josh. (filmmaker). (2010). Gasland [Documentary]. United States: New Video Group. 24. Retrieved from website: http://stateimpact. npr.
org/texas/tag/earthquake/ “Ohio Quakes Probably Triggered by Waste Disposal Well, Say Seismologists”. LamontDoherty Earth Observatory Institute, Columbia University. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012. 25. University of Texas, Study finds correlation between injection wells and small earthquakes, 6 Aug. 2011. From: http://www. utexas. edu/news/2012/08/06/correlation-injection-wells! small-earthquakes/ 26. Jeff McMahon (10 April 2011). “EPA: New Radiation Highs in Little Rock Milk, Philadelphia Drinking Water”. Forbes. Retrieved 22 February 2012 27. Sandy Bauers (21 July 2011).
“Cancer patients’ urine suspected in Wissahickon iodine-131 levels”. Philadelphia inquirer, Carbon County Groundwater Guardians. Retrieved 25 February 2012 28. Cupas, Angela C. Not-So-Safe Drinking Water Act: Why We Must Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing at the Federal Level, The. 3 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 605 (2008-2009) Sebastian–Good paper that provides judicious background information and discussion of the possible health and environmental risks of fracking. For the portfolio revision, I would suggest expanding your discussion of the health risks and problems with the existing research on fracking.