Hydrofracking; Water, environment and Life - Research Paper Example

 Hydrofracking in NYS Introduction It has been reported by Geologists that shale beds lying in New York are endowed with enormous amounts of natural gas. Utica and Marcellus shale are said to have significant amounts of gas. Several companies dealing in gas have registered their interests in venturing into this investment. These companies have planned to make use of the horizontal drilling, and the hydraulic fracturing method to tap the gas from rocks that contain these oils and gases. The issue of hydrofracking has been brought to the limelight since the drafting of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Hydraulic fracturing or Hydrofracking is a process that involves gallons of sand, water and chemicals being pumped deep into the ground. The pressure exerted by these millions of gallons will break open rocks, which will lead, to gas being released. Reports show that nine out of ten gas wells in the United States of America make use of this process. This process of extraction is extremely expensive. Shale deposits are a resultant feature of a combination of horizontal drifting and hydrofracking. The practice is spreading to other new regions. The fracking process becomes effective when a drilled well is connected to steel pipes in the well bore. “The steel pipes are perforated with the areas endowed with gas or oil being the main targets. This makes the gas or oil to flow to the surface where it is tapped.” Sibson (2012). The process is not only expensive but also complex. There are other ways in which oil or gas can be extracted from the earth’s core. Research has shown that fractures can also be created by propane and nitrogen being injected on the rocks containing gas or oil. At times, hydrochloric acid is used to acidize the surface. Hydrofracking in New York State has drawn many controversial comments. “The process is not just benign considering the various reactions it has received. The plant operates 24 hours a day in the 7 days of the week” (Pearce, 2012). There are chances that these regular operations will result in accidents that can have impacts on the ecosystem. The United States Environmental Protection Agency reported that about 80- 150 billion gallons of water are utilized each year to fracture 35,000 wells annually in the U.S. This amount of water utilized is estimated to the amount of water that about 40 to 80 cities can utilize in a year (Sibson, 2005). The amount of water used varies from well to well. In coal-bed methane wells, 50,000-350,000 water gallons are used in every well. Shale wells use about 2 to 10 million of water gallons for a single well. The reactions of people are based on the concerns drawn from using so much water. The extraction of prodigious amounts of water is reported to have serious ecological impacts. One million gallons of water requires 200 truck trips to facilitate the transportation. Water in this case, is both waste and fresh water. As mentioned above, water is not the only material used to enhance fracturing. Sand and proppants are also utilized. Oil and gas wells are said to use about 300,000 pounds of proppant. Coal-bed fracturing requires about 75,000-320,000 pounds of the same while shale gas wells utilize more than 4 million proppants per well. In Wisconsin and Texas, impacts of sand mining are resurfacing day by day. Some of the impacts reported include water consumption and air emissions. Crystalline silica is also said to pose health problems. Toxic chemicals are also crucial for the hydrofracking process. Industries involved have reported to make use of chemicals. About 0.5 to 2.0% of chemicals make up the total constituents of chemicals found in fracturing fluids. It should be noted that if more water is being used for fracturing, then the amount of chemicals used is also high. For instance, 80 to 330 tons of chemicals are used for every 400 million gallons of water. Water used in the hydrofracking process depletes water supplies. It is also said to affect the aquatic habitat, and to dewater drinking water aquifers. The issue of transporting vast amounts of water has been reported to have negative effects on the road. There are high chances that the large amounts of water being transported leads to localized air quality. Studies have revealed that 20-85% of fluids used for fracturing remain underground after the process. There are fluids that prior to being used flow back to the surface. These fluids are treated as wastes as they are stored in open pits awaiting disposal. New York State drafted statements on environmental impacts. One analysis looked into the effects of VOCs especially methanol. The report showed that, “for every 5 million gallons of water, 32.5 tons of methanol is emitted.” (Laubach, 2004). Inhalation of methanol or oral exposure of the same has several impacts. Headache, insomnia, blurred vision, conjunctivitis, giddiness, dizziness, and gastric disturbances are some of the effects of methanol inhalation. Air modeling in New York suggests that beyond the ambient air thresholds, impoundments will be termed as sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Disposal of flow-back water has been mentioned as a public health concern (Hazen, 2009).Water treatment plants are, therefore, expected to reinforce their testing procedures so that contamination of fresh drinking water can be cut down. It is crucial to note that New York has been listed as almost incapable of handling waste water that is radioactive. In central New York, plant managers were said to be unaware of the regulations on waste water disposal. These plant managers also said that they would not consider taking the radioactive waste water. Pennsylvania water treatment bodies do not treat flow back water. Dilution of chlorides and sulfates is the method used by this water plant. This water is then ready for drinking. Contamination of water by bromides is linked to problems of birth defects and cancer. New Yorkers are said to have mixed reactions to the issue of hydrofracking. The Marist poll release noted that 41% of New Yorkers are against the process while 385 support the process. 21 % were not certain of their opinion. The suburban New Yorkers said that they preferred the process- 46% were for the idea of the process being put in place while 36% were against the process. 47% of democrats opposed the plant while 49% of republicans were against the process. Dr. Miringoff, Director of Marist College Institute for Public opinion reported that, “A large number of New Yorkers are yet to decide on what think of concerning the process”(Opinion News, 2011). Those who were for the idea of the plant pointed that they will be independent. In this case, the New Yorkers were pleased that they will no longer rely on other states for gas or oil. Those who were against the idea said that the plant will pose a health problem and that it will have negative impacts on the environment. 56% of New Yorkers preferred their water being safe from contamination. 39% chose independence brought by oil over safety of water while 5% were not certain which of the two they would choose. 41% of New Yorkers are for the idea of employment creation over water safety while 52% are for the idea of water safety rather than job creation (Laubach, 2012). One in every four New Yorkers does not know where from the water they consume is tapped. 75% of the suburban New York residents know that their water is from the upstate while the remaining 25% is not aware of these reservoirs. Fracturing fluid chemicals are toxic to both humans and animals. Research has shown that the toxic substances used in this process cause cancer. Petroleum distillates; kerosene and diesel contain toluene, benzene, xylene and ethyl benzene. These fracturing fluid chemicals also contain methanol, glycol ethers, ethylene glycol, sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. The Environmental Working Group reported that benzene, a human carcinogen, is toxic when it comes in contact with water. This is to show that benzene contained in petroleum distillates is definitely hazardous for human and animal consumption. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are found in water that flows back to the surface after fracturing are fatal. These VOCs are said to be very dangerous when found in water. Since VOCs are volatile, there are high chances that they can diffuse in the air. The University of Pittsburgh’s centre for Healthy Environments and Communities researcher recorded in a pamphlet that, “Flow-back water from the wells resurfaces and moves to frac ponds. Here, VOCs diffuse into the air.” It is noteworthy that this waste water is disposed off in a crude manner that is hazardous. Schlumberger, for instance, dispose off waste products at hazardous waste facilities. Apparently, these waste products are then injected into underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) (George, 2011). The Safe Drinking Water Act emphasizes that waste waters are not to be injected into USDWs. The fact that EPAs are allowing for waste waters to be injected into USDWs is simply unconscionable. There are several health risks related to exposure to fracturing. Chemicals ingested through drinking water are one of the main health risks caused by fracturing. There are also common instances where people working with these chemicals come in contact with the chemical. People can also inhale the toxic chemicals from vapors present in tanks and ponds. “The health effects of the chemicals used in the fracturing process are categorized into 12 parts; cardiovascular. Kidney, eye, liver, nervous system, cancer, mutagenic, endocrine disruptions, blood, respiratory system, skin, and ecological effects.” (Morfat, 2010). Surface water and soil are also contaminated by the many toxic chemicals used in the fracturing process. Spillage during transportation, as well as, flow back water seeping from the surface is the reason behind surface water and soil contamination. In September 2009 for instance, Cabot oil and gas spilled a gel that is used in hydrofracking. The LGC-35 gel was reported to have been spilt twice at the well (Hazen, 2009). A total of 8,000 gallons of the gel polluted Stevens Creek leading to the death of fish. There are long term impacts of the fracturing well system. The 20-85% of water that flows back to the surface will cause dire consequences in the years to come. This is because these waters will continue penetrating into the surface thereby contaminating the drinking water surfaces. There are also reported cases of air quality being compromised. In oil and gas producing regions, air quality has been degraded. The level of benzene in these regions are said to be high. This is a reason to worry since benzene has been mentioned one of the human carcinogens. The air emissions from these wells are also said to have high concentrations of toxins. A petition by people against hydrofracking was put forward. They voiced out their thoughts on the issue by asking for drilling of gas to be banned in New York State. A paper version of the petition read;” DO NOT FRAKE NEW YORK!!” Several organizations registered their support for the petition. These organizations argued that there is a need to keep the water safe. There was concern that some families within New York state that were using contaminated water. The drinking water used by these people was contaminated with methane and heavy metals. There were also concerns raised on the blowouts from wells which spewed up liquid waste that were used in fracking. These waste products moved into the air and on the surface leaving the environment at risk. These organizations explained that their primary concern was the environment and consequently the people. The exposure to radioactivity was one of the greatest concerns. Radioactivity was said to be a characteristic feature of Marcellus shale. The other concern raised by these lobby groups was the injection of waste products into drinking water sources. The air pollution that resulted from compressors and diesel engines emitted toxic fumes that rendered the human respiratory system useless. Brine which is saltier than seawater seeped into the lakes from the wells. This posed a substantial risk on aquatic animals. Humans who consumed these aquatic lives were also at risk of poisoning since the saltiness is in excess. Brine is also known to cause corrosion of infrastructure. Infrastructures like roads that are not well kept are in danger of causing accidents. These accidents could also involve spillage of materials being transported to the wells. Another issue that raised concerns is that of waste products being damped into municipal sewage treatment plants. Many New Yorkers are reported to pose regrets following the deals they made with Hydrofracking plants. Conclusion There are groups of people and that are sensitizing masses on the dangers of installing hydrofracking plants in NYS. The question many are asking is “why now?” and “why the rush?” These groups are trying to make people understand why there is a need to choose clean water over energy. They are also for the idea of people choosing energy over water. The controversy lies in the fact that both clean water and energy are vital for humans. The Environmental Protection Agency is carrying out further studies on the long term impacts of hydrofracking. Results on these studies will be out in September this year. It is up to NYS to take time and look into the issue. This is imperative considering that hasty decisions might leads to wrong judgment of the situation. There is also a need for the NYS to update her Oil and Gas Rules. The rules were reviewed 1985 thereby making it a need to modernize the same considering that times have changed. References George, N. (2011). Hydrofracking; Water, environment and Life. Journal of Environmental Conservation , 32-75. http://www.stargazette.co/../Hydrofracking-groups-make-final-push-DE. Hazen, P. &. (2009). Impact assessment of natural gas production in the New York city water supply watershed. New York: Sage. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/-hazen-sawyer.ashx Laubach, S. (2004). Coevolution of Crackseal. Journal of structural archaeology , 967-982. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article Morfat, L. (2010). Hydrofracking in NYS; A controversy. Energy and the Environment , 345- 361. Opion, T. R., & News, M. D. (2011). Hydrofracking in New York State: No Consensus Among Residents. New York: Marist College. http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/517-hydrofracking-in-nys-no-consensus-amon Pearce, A. (2012, January 25). Hydrofracking in NYS: Why Now? Ithaca, NY: Sage . http://www.ithaca.com/…/article-cec576f0-46e4-11e1-a6ab-0019bb2963f… Sibson, R. (2005). Seismic pumping- A hydrothermal fluid transport system. Journal of the Geological society , 653-659. http://www.jgs.lyellcollection.org/content/131/6/653.full.pdf Read More