Background
“Fracking,” short for hydraulic fracturing, is the process of extracting out oil and natural gas from deep underground rock formations. One might wonder where did all this gas and oil come from? Well, deep underground lies stores of once-inaccessible natural gas and oil. The natural gas and oil trapped in these rock formations were formed over millions of years as layers of decaying organisms were exposed to intense heat and pressure under the Earth’s crust. The first instance of Fracking in the U.S. took place during 1947 in the Hugoton Kansas gas field by Halliburton, a major multinational oil field services corporation. During that time a lot of joint ventures between the DOE and other energy companies allowed for breakthroughs in the process to make it more efficient and economical. “The DOE later subsidized Mitchell Energy’s first successful horizontal drilling in the north-Texas Barnett Shale in 1991. Mitchell Energy engineers developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as ‘‘slickwater fracturing,’’ the addition of chemicals to the water to increase fluid flow”(Throupe, 208). This was a major breakthrough as it allowed for the natural gas and oil to flow back up to the surface. This is what started the modern fracking boom. In addition to slickwater, horizontal drilling has allowed the drilling process to be more efficient as it allows the drill to turn 90 degrees and produce more natural gas and oil.
The modern fracking process typically involves injecting a pressurized fluid mixture of water, sand, and fracking chemicals underground in order to create cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas and petroleum can escape and be extracted for usage. In this process, fracking fluid will be pumped down into the well and in order to prevent this fluid and the oil coming up to the surface from entering the water supply, a steel casing must be placed into the well. That casing is also then layered by the second casing of cement. The casings are applied until the oil and gas reservoir has been met, typically at around “6,000 to 10,000 feet” (Throupe 207). Just before it reaches the reservoir; the drill turns horizontal, it continues to drill for a couple thousand meters and a perforating device then creates small holes into the rock formation. “When the fractures are complete, and pressure is relieved, a portion of the fluids flows back up the well where it is captured and stored for later treatment or disposal” (Throupe, 204). After the process is done there is usually “15%-80% wastewater, this is composed of toxic organic compounds, heavy metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials” (Throupe, 208).
The chemical additives used in fracturing fluids only make up 2% of the composition the rest is sand and water. “Nonetheless, over the life of a typical well, this may amount to 100,000 gallons of chemical additives. These additives include some that are known carcinogens, some are toxic, and some are neurotoxins. These include benzene, lead, ethylene glycol, methanol, boric acid, and 2-butoxyethanol. High levels of iodine-131 (a radioactive tracer used in hydraulic fracturing) are the major contributor to the generally elevated radiation levels found near hydraulic fracturing sites” (Throupe, 210). If left not treated and secured, this wastewater can infect the drinking water supply and create a hazardous environment for people and animals to live in. Another problem associated with this process is the introduction of VOCs, or volatile organic compounds, methane, ethane, liquid condensate and other combustion types such as carbon monoxide into the atmosphere (Throupe, 211). As a greenhouse gas methane is many times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. In addition to recent studies have shown that fracking poses erosion risks and this can lead to the vulnerability of chemical pits near sites. “Natural gas well construction can involve changes to the land, including the clearing of land for the building of roads, drilling pads, and pipelines, all of which can speed erosion. This can all cause increases in stormwater runoff and erosion”(Atkinson and King, 35).
This is only a glimpse of the controversy surrounding fracking. Fracking although it is considered a solution to the U.S. high energy consumption, it is not sustainable and the dangers it poses to the environment and the citizens of the U.S. does not justify continuing this practice. One of the main problems surrounding fracking fluid besides its toxicity is the fact that the fracking companies have not issued out the ingredients they use in their fracking fluid. This makes it hard to regulate fracking because the government does not know the makeup of the chemicals used in the process and therefore cannot establish a clear understanding of its potential dangers. This is also due to the fact that the companies themselves hold this information like trade secrets and they don’t want their formulas to be shared with other companies. “In his 2012 State of the Union, Barack Obama stated his intention to force fracking companies to disclose the chemicals they use, but proposed guidelines were criticized for failing to specify disclosure of the chemicals used. This and other prior intentions are known as part of the proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act)10” (Throupe, 211). Obama made it so that the companies were forced to hand over their disclosed information in order to properly regulate the whole process and take better care of our land. Since the introduction to President Trump into the office and Scott Pruitt into the head of the EPA, the U.S. has taken a drastic turn in its relationship with fracking companies. The EPA has declared fracking “a safe and inexpensive option for the disposal of unwanted and often hazardous industrial byproducts,” and have also approved thousands of wells across the country. The Trump administration has also started to try and roll back on previous methods of restriction pollution caused by fracking. The “Republican-controlled Congress has already attempted to nix an Obama rule meant to limit oil-and-gas companies from flaring methane, which releases the potent greenhouse gas and other toxins into the atmosphere. It has also rolled back a regulation that prevented mining companies from removing mountaintops and dumping the leftover debris into nearby river valleys”(Nobel, 5) Changes like this is what eventually leads to potential problems down the line. The EPA and the Trump Administration have forsaken its own citizens and have allied up with big oil and natural gas corporations for profit.
It is not just the locals who are mad, but also the homeowners whose property has gone through fracking have a problem with it. Not only is it a hassle to go through as the process takes 3 months to get approved, but the setup after takes a long time as well. The operation may take several hours to several days depending on the number of fracture zones. The noise and traffic that the whole process creates is another issue most owners have a problem with as well. The development of a drilling site can create a loss of quiet enjoyment to the neighbors of the property owners. In addition to the noise and traffic, there is also more light pollution created as a result of fracking and the odors from the process can also affect the enjoyment one might have. Studies also show that homes that have gone through fracking are not bid as high as others that have not. In a study done by Ron Throupe, Robert A. Simmons, and Xue Mao, where the scientists took a survey related to the proximity to fracking operations in Texas and Florida. “Our contingent valuation surveys show a 5%–15% reduction in bid value for homes located proximate to fracking scenarios, depending on the petroleum-friendliness of the venue and proximity to the drilling site”(Throupe,1) The prices of these houses near fracking sites as well as the houses that have gone through fracking are being lowered as many people do not consider these homes safe. The owners are now stuck with selling the property for really low prices and therefore cannot make a profit back on it.
Counterargument
On the other hand, if done right Hydraulic Fracturing can be considered a safe process for collecting natural gas and it can even boost the economy of a state by a significant margin. States with significant oil and gas reserves depend heavily upon production to fund various state programs. Oil and gas production in these states generates significant revenues for individuals working within the state, as well as for the state itself” (Blight and Wendelbo, 2). In one study done by the University of Cincinnati, scientists like Amy Townsend-Small tested for methane concentration found in groundwater, to see if any methane has escaped during the fracking process. Since methane can also come from soil bacteria they wanted to figure out where the primary source of it was coming from if there was any. “After more than two years collecting and testing water samples, the team detected only negligible levels of methane from most of the 23 wells, both before and after fracking began. The researchers did identify four homes with methane concentrations above the explosive threshold, the point where water becomes flammable. In all cases, the methane came from soil bacteria, not from natural gas” (Sumner, 11). Scientists, as shown, have not found any traces of water contamination as a result of fracking in Ohio in just one well.
Rebuttal
However, in most cases, there has been evidence of water contamination, as a result, of fracking. In Pennsylvania, for example, “Oil-and-gas companies in Pennsylvania once delivered fracking wastewater to sewage- treatment plants. But in the summer of 2008, residents began noticing that their water had developed a funny taste and their dishwashers were malfunctioning. A steel plant reported the water was corroding its machinery. Last year, the EPA banned the practice”. (Nobel, 2). The fracking wastewater was not fully filtered, and it resulted in the corrosion of dishwashers and industrial-grade metal at a local steel plant. In addition to this, “ In 2011, a well operated by EXCO Resources oozed waste for four months into a remote forest in central Pennsylvania. A landmark study published last year in Environmental Science & Technology, co-authored by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, determined that a West Virginia injection-well site was “impacting the stream that runs through the area.”(Nobel, 2) Fracking in all situations cannot be controlled for and the safety associated with it is not reliable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, fracking is not the energy that will save us in the future. It is not sustainable and poses great risks to our environment, drinking water, and atmosphere as well. It creates thousands of fracking fluid wastewater every year that just remains in waste pods because at the moment there is no way to recycle it. It is a problem for the owners of the homes that have gone through fracking because they are losing money since most people do not consider it safe. It also has concerns right now since the sites are not looked after well and extreme weather phenomenon like floods has the potential to completely destroy a local water supply. With the way the EPA and the Trump administration is now, it is up to the individuals and the local communities to fight these corporations and protect their own land, and it is by their own right to have a safe place to live and take care of their family.
Works Cited
NOBEL, JUSTIN. “The Small Town That Fought Fracking.” Rolling Stone, no. 1288,June2017,p.38.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=123952209.
Atkinson, Nathan, and Katie King. “Flooding and Fracking: A Review of Extreme Weather Impacts on Drilling Activities.” Natural Resources & Environment, vol. 27, no. 2, 2012, pp. 28–36. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24426234.
Bligh, Shawna, and Chris Wendelbo. “Hydraulic Fracturing: Drilling Into the Issue.” Natural Resources & Environment, vol. 27, no. 3, 2013, pp. 7–12. JSTOR, JSTOR,www.jstor.org/stable/24426158.
Throupe, Ron, et al. “A Review of Hydro ‘Fracking’ and Its Potential Effects on Real Estate.” Journal of Real Estate Literature, vol. 21, no. 2, 2013, pp. 205–232. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24885050.
SUMNER, THOMAS. “Fracking Not Linked to Contamination.” Science News, vol. 186, no. 11, 2014, pp. 11–11. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43600013.
TED-Ed. “How Does Fracking Work? – Mia Nacamulli.” YouTube, YouTube, 13 July 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tudal_4x4F0.
