Natural Gas and Its Effects on Humanity - Research Paper Example

Natural Gas and Its Effects on Humanity The United States has huge unconventional gas reservoirs in moderately impermeable media such as coal beds and shale. Put together with Canada, these reserves account for nearly all the commercial shale gas that is produced globally. In recent years, novel technology such as hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling, have made it cheaply and practically viable to mine natural gas from these deposits that were in the past geologically inaccessible. In 2010, the generation and production of unconventional gas was nearly 60% of all gas that came from the United States. The production of natural gas from the Marcellus production, mostly in Pennsylvania, at the present accounts for the largest part of this production (Schmidt 63). While the enlargement of shale gas production in the United States is laudable, it has brought along with it a national discussion that does not currently have consensus over its economic, climate, health and social ramifications. Shale gas has been lauded as a source of cheap electricity, suburban as well as commercial energy, industrial energy and even transportation energy. Without a doubt, natural gas offers an appealing source of energy since it produces lesser pollutants when ignited as compared to other fossil-fuel sources for each unit of heat created. As aforementioned, it is also gotten from dependable domestic sources and has brought good fortune for land owners who are given high resource rents for the hydrocarbons beneath their property. There is a wide body of research that proves that natural gas development creates employment opportunities and augments the locals earning power in the short run. Other studies have proved that the housing prices for the property on communal water increases depending on the closeness to drilling in various states. The same studies have however shown that imagined risks of ground water contamination bring down the real estate prices for homesteads that use well water. The advantages of domestically gotten natural gas have been at the center of public debate. The debate has even gotten the attention of President Obama who commended on it in his 2012 and 2013 State of the Union Addresses as a key policy of his government. On top of its economic advantages, many analysts claim that switching to the use of natural gas production will support the U.S. energy autonomy and bolster national security (Schmidt 64). Despite the numerous advantages that are linked to this debate, there lurks beneath it possible environmental effects, and resultant public health consequences of natural gas production. At the present, the production of shale gas is not liable to the Safe Drinking Water Act as well as the Clean Water Act stipulations. In the last few years, far reaching environmental and health concerns have however come out in regards to drilling activity. The objections to shale gas development quotes current studies that report on methane leakage, local air pollution, as well as water pollution. Referring to the environmental concerns, several current studies have looked at the possible health effects of unconventional methods quoting case studies as well as health impact assessments and toxicology to demonstrate that there is a possibility of short and long term negative health effects. In essence, the public health has concerns that suggest that human well-being may be affected by contact with shale gas production. Although not a major area of study, research has consistently shown that the production of natural gas has an effect on fundamental issues such as the birth rates (Marchand 165). Shale Gas Overview In Pennsylvania where majority of the shale gas production is concentrated, the development incorporates drilling both vertical and horizontal wells into the Marcellus Shale. In recent days, focus has now turned to the Utica Shell. This procedure follows a technique that stirs the well and it is usually known as hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing refers to a process that makes use of water to disintegrate the rock or by virtue of the underground shale. On average, this process includes pumping 3-4 million gallons of water mixed with sand as well as fracturing chemicals into the well and applying high pressure to splinter the shell close to 7,000 feet underground. Shale has a varied function and so the distance drilled and the amount of water utilized varies across different geological formations (Olmstead). The entire process of finalizing a natural gas well requires an average of four months to complete. In the first month, huge diesel trucks bring to the site the necessary materials for the drilling process. The average number of trucks needed to get all the necessary materials on site is 1500-2000. During the initial 30 days, after the well is completed, it is estimated that almost 70% of the water that is utilized during the drilling process comes back to the surface in a process referred to as flowback. This water is then collected in ground level water reservoirs and then transferred for treatment as a waste water facility (Olmstead). In the last 5 years, there have been a rising number of wells being sunk in BLM tracts of land due to the rise in demand for domestically generated natural gas. After the mineral owner leases the land, a company seeks for a license to extract gas on that land. The state government under which the license is applied issues the license and once this is done the drilling process begins almost immediately. There are numerous decision-making processes, which do not involve the owner but one’s that are critical in determining which permits become a well. In the examination of the effect of natural gas production, it is critical to only examine the pieces of land where real production has taken place (Myers 872). Shale Gas a Possible Pollutant Initial evidence points out that shale gas production may emit waste that is capable of contaminating the environment, aquifers, water systems as well as the bionetwork that is close to the drilling sites or places where water treatment equipments treat the water used during the drilling process. However, there is minimal agreement on the possibility of contamination, mechanisms of how spread it might me. For water pollution, dysfunctional well casings or surface spills and accidents are believed to be the least contentious channels. Despite the minimal attention that the media has accorded this issue, air pollution is acquiring increased attention by researchers. Sources of air pollution are to be expected with burning activities as well as in all the other activities involved in the drilling process (Myers 873). Majority of the media concern that surround unconventional extraction methods and mainly the method of hydraulic fracturing is tied to possible human exposure as a result of water contamination. According to a report by the government (Weber 1), between 2005 and 2010, the licensed gas service companies utilized over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products that contained 760 chemicals among other components. A quarter of the hydraulic fracturing products contained chemicals that have scientifically been proved to have possible human carcinogens. These products were regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act because of the potential danger they pose on human health, and these chemicals were also listed as poisonous air contaminants under the Clean Air Act. In reality, the mostly utilized and useful chemical was methanol, which is a certified air pollutant in the country. The BTEX elements (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) appeared in 62 of these products that were examined within that period. BTEX elements are well known human carcinogens. The gas companies are reported to have used close to 11.5 million gallons of substances with at least one BTEX element within the reported time. These chemicals are utilized in small proportions to the amount of fresh water utilized in the drilling process and so there is skepticism concern the ability of aquifers to contaminate the water. However, these small levels of usage should not be underestimated in their ability to pollute. With chemicals like benzene that is believed to be hazardous even at very small levels, the effects of these chemicals should not be underestimated. Although there is contention on the substances that cause pollution, there is a general agreement that pollution does indeed take place. This agreement should be taken serious since there is a high possibility that it is doing more harm than good to people’s health. This is evident from the numerous studies which show that wells within the proximity of the drilling radius contained traces of methane. This level of methane was almost 20 times more than that contained in the wells outside this radius (Weber 5). Apart from being possible water pollutants, there is evidence that natural gas production is a possible air pollutant. Research has indicated that the air within drilling sites contains increased levels of volatile organic compounds usually methane among other dangerous hydrocarbons, while some of the possible contaminates are sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxides. Although majority of these pollutants have reduced toxicities, there are a few whose toxicity level is capable of harming human beings living within the area. In all these studies, one thing that comes out is that natural gas drilling has potentially harmful effects on the air. Although the toxins in these elements might be minimal, the truth is that they can accumulate to levels that become harmful to human life. This is a fact that should not be ignored in the studies on the effect of natural gas and the effects it has on humanity (McKenzie 100). Effect of Natural Gas Production on Health Majority of the studies today that address the possible health effects of natural gas production examine pollutants at the drilling locations or in drilling fluids and then examine the effects that the exposure to these chemicals have on human health. In one of the studies, it has been established that in excess of 75% could have an effect on the skin, eyes as well as other sensory organs. The study has also established that the effects extend to the respiratory as well as the gastrointestinal systems. Chronic exposure is mostly a subject of grave concern considering that an exposure of 40-50% could adversely affect the nervous system as well as other vital organs in the body. Experts have also warned that a 37% exposure could affect the endocrine system while a 25% exposure is a possible cause of cancer. These may bring about long-term consequences that are not immediately measured after a well has been finalized (Sage Environmental Consulting 15). In one of the most recent studies on the effect of air pollution, it was established that the risk of cancer rises significantly based on the proximity to the well. The study established that benzene remains one of the major contributors to the danger of cancer in the society. Although not conclusive, the results of this study points to the necessity of other studies on the effect of natural gas drilling on human health. As noted earlier, the contamination of water resources has an effect not only on the human health of those concerned but also on their social life. This can be seen from the fact that contamination of water resources leads to the depreciation of real estate within the areas where the pollution has taken place. In addition to this, there is also the issue of light pollution, which is a major concern for people in residential houses as well as strain on health care systems. In addition to this, there is the present threat of accidents and malfunctions, as well as unnecessary psychological stress from community transformations (Urbina). Although the link between human health risk and natural gas production has not fully been established, there exist studies that link human and animal health with natural gas production. Their study calls for the need for further examination on the possible health effects brought about by shale gas production means. In one of the studies on animal health in locations near natural gas drilling sites, there was multiple deaths of cows, dogs, chicken, goats and fish. The study also established that there are numerous health challenges that are reported in human beings such as upper respiratory, dermatological, mind among a host of other medical complications. Although the studies in this area are limited, there is enough evidence to prove that something indeed needs to be done especially in assessing the challenges associated with this problem (Neidell 1209). In the last several years, scientists have set out to examine the effect of air or water pollution on the outcomes of infant health. In one of the recent studies, it was established that exposure to particulate matter reduced the birth weight by a margin of almost 8.9 grams. The hydrocarbons that are present in contaminated air have also been linked to heightened risk of intrauterine growth retardation as well as births that are below the recommended weight. Benzene is one of the most examined air pollutants in the area on natural gas production and has been linked to infant weight reductions of nearly 77 grams in some instances (Neidell 1210). Another study, has also established a strong link between birth weight and pregnant mothers being exposed to substances such as PM, SO2, Co, VOCs and innate gases. In most of the studies, majority of the elements are examined alone but in the case of the shale gases, the research has examined them in togetherness and how they are linked to reduced birth weight. However, most of the available studies have only examined the effect of the gases on areas where there is an exposure to the gas and this has naturally influenced the examination of pollution and baby health outcomes (Callaghan & Dietz 826). One problem that comes up in the examination of natural gas production and the effect on human health is that the studies can only examine the number of children born alive. A further examination of the available literature shows that the numbers of mortality rates in production areas that conduct natural gas drilling are usually high compared to areas where such production does not take place. Although some of these studies lack the much-needed backing of other studies, there is no doubt that this is an area of study that should be open to further research. At the present, such efforts do not seem to be undertaken in the right measure hence leading to the conclusion that the emitted gases in drilling sites can reduce the weight of an unborn baby or even lead to their demise (Callaghan & Dietz 828). Economic Benefits Although natural gas production is considered to have mainly negative effects, it would be wrong to claim that there are no positive effects of this process. According to experts, areas near the drilling sites benefit the most because of the development that is most likely to accompany the drilling process. To begin with, there are improvements in public health that are brought by electricity hat is gotten from natural gas instead o coal. However, the challenge with this form of energy is that it is not uniformly distributed. Despite these benefits, they are most likely to be lost in the light the accompanied expenses that are linked to bad health. Research has constantly showed that people living a close proximity to drilling sites spent an excess of $ 15,000 in additional health costs during the drilling process. In most cases, this cost is passed on to the state governments since they are required to offer specialized education for the low birth weight as well as bear the health costs through the claim of health insurance (Marchand 170). According to estimates, an excess of 15 million Americans live within a 1-mile distance of areas where natural gas drilling is conducted. What this entails is that a large number of individuals are unknowingly exposed to the risk of falling sick due to the exposure to poisonous substances. Although there are various practices that are employed to mitigate the effects of this practice, there is a wide research, which indicates that the process has long-term negative effects for people living in proximity to the drilling sites. This area needs further research to come to a consensus on the real effects of natural gas production on humanity (Marchand 170). Conclusion The United States is turning more to natural gas to replace the traditional sources of energy that were hazardous to the environment. The natural gas alternative has been providing alternative cheap source of energy for both domestic and commercial use. However, the process of drilling the natural gas has been blamed by experts for being responsible for the pollution of both the water and air around the drilling area. Unfortunately, this pollution is by hazardous materials such as methyl and benzene. These carcinogenic products have been linked to numerous health hazards that have called for constant medical attention. The resultant economic benefits from the natural gas usage are therefore cancelled by the resultant costs of seeking medical treatment for ailments brought about by the hazardous products. Works Cited Callaghan, Waltz, & Dietz, Patrick. Differences in birth weight for gestational age distributions according to the measures used to assign gestational age. American Journal of Epidemiology, 171(7), 2010: 826–836. Marchand, John. Local labor market impacts of energy boom-bust-boom in western Canada. Journal of Urban Economics, 71(1), 2012: 165–174. McKenzie, Witter. Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources. Science of the Total Environment, 2012. 100-115 Myers, Teresa. Potential contaminant pathways from hydraulically fractured shale to aquifers. Ground Water, 50(6), 2012: 872-882. Neidell, Michael. Air pollution, health, and socio-economic status: the effect of outdoor air quality on childhood asthma. Journal of health economics, 23(6), 2004: 1209-1236. Olmstead, Stephen, et al. Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013. Sage Environmental Consulting. City of Fort Worth Natural Gas Air Quality Study. Fort Worth City, 2011. 15-20. Schmidt, Charles. Blind rush? Shale gas boom proceeds amid human health questions. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(8), 2013. 63-70. Urbina, Irvine. A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May be More. 2011. Web. 26 April 2014 Weber, John. A decade of natural gas development: The makings of a resource curse? 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, dc. 1-10. Read More