The Controversy of Hydro Fracking - Case Study Example

The Controversy of Hydro Fracking Introduction Hydro Fracking is a process by which deposits of oil or natural gas are extracted from deep underground of shale formations. The controversy over hydro fracking was rapidly spread in the United States during the period 2010-2012. Just like any other technology, hydro fracking attracted the controversy due to public concerns about its adverse effects on the environment. While people complain about the negative effect, they enjoy the benefits derived from the extraction. Hydro fracking has adverse effects on the water and soil, making critics publicize its bad influence on the environment. However, it is not possible to ignore the benefits derived from shale extraction as it has played a major role in solving energy problems through introduction of new ways of getting shale gas. There has been recent research and studies through different authorities in this field to get to the bottom of this controversy by unearthing the benefits and risks of hydro fracking. This research paper seeks to present the truth about the effects hydro fracking by analyzing the relevant literature from 2010 to 2013. Negative Effects of Hydro Fracking Water Contamination Hydro fracking causes soil and water pollution due to the substances used in the fracturing the shale formation. There are different chemical additives used in the fracking process when drilling mud, preparing slurries and fluids. Water is not only polluted by the added additives but also through radioactive materials which are naturally occurring, heavy metals, brine water and liquid hydrocarbons. The different types of contaminants are categorized as follows; Natural gas- the natural gas may or may not be mixed with total dissolved solids, aluminum, manganese or iron. Brine components- include compounds such as chloride, barium, sodium or total dissolved solids. Manganese, iron and/or aluminum- this category excludes contamination as a result of brine components and natural gases. Contamination as a result of turbidity, sediments or/and drill cutting contamination. Many people worrying about the safety of their water indicate that components such as methane and toluene enter their drinking water in water bodies or wells by subsurface migration. According to a study conducted by Vidic et al, (2013), there has been two cases where underground water has been contaminated by fracturing fluids. One of the cases is in West Virginia in 1987 and the other one in Pavillion (Brantley, et al., 2013). Water pollution is also caused by spills and leaks of pollutants into the water bodies through pipes, valves, leaking tanks, well blowouts and trucking accidents. The spills leaked into water include, mud, drill cuttings, sediments, hydrostatic test water, produced fluids, fracturing chemicals and fuels. These spills are a hazard to both surface and underground water and also the soil. Hydro fracking is responsible for increased land disturbances as a result of pipeline construction and well pads which raise overall suspended solid concentration as a result of sedimentation in streams from discharge of wastes. Sediments discharge cause environmental impacts both in the short run and long run. Most of the waste products discharged are packed with chemical compounds which are harmful to human health such as pyrite, naturally occurring radioactive material and metals such as strontium and barium. Most vegetation is removed from drilling sites which accelerates sedimentation and surface runoff. As such, harmful compounds may be discharged into water streams which may cause imbalance to the ecosystem. Drilling wastes can further pollute surface water and the environment through storm and flooding, unexpected geological conditions or human errors (Brantley, et al., 2013). Water Quantity Issues Diminishment of the supply of water is a prevalent phenomenon in areas of intense drilling procedures. Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations and horizontal drilling require large volumes of water depending on the volume of shale. Factors determining the quality of water to be used during hydraulic fracturing or drilling are depended upon lengths of the lateral boreholes and shale properties. For instance, to fracture a Marcellus Shale of 500 ft well bore requires approximately 400,000 gal of water. In northeastern PA, shale fracturing and drilling activities are supplied from surface water sourced from streams and lakes. About 87% of water used in the Susquehanna River Basin (SRB) by oil and gas companies is sourced from surface and groundwater. Withdrawal of large volumes of water from lakes and streams impacts heavily on the long term ecological health of the ecosystem. It can result is changes in channel shape, sediment transport and water temperate thereby affecting river biota adversely (Brantley, et al., 2013). Air pollution Air contamination results from high levels of emission of methane gas in the environment. Methane is the principal component of natural gas in hydro fracking process. Methane is very dangerous when exposed into the air as it is a highly potent natural gas in trapping heat. During the drilling process, most of the gases are released and emitted into the atmosphere. Other processes which cause air pollution include transport of the equipment and materials, operation of the site and during disposal of the waste. The contaminants released during drilling are; benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, smog, ground level ozone, xylene and ethyl benzene (BTEX) and particulate matter and dust (Brantley, et al., 2013). Environmental Degradation Due To Orphaned or Abandoned Wells There is an environmental incident which occurs where an orphaned oil or gas which was not properly sealed interconnects with a new shale gas. According to PA DEP, there are more than 350,000 oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania which have been drilled and their locations are unknown. The biggest probability is that they were not properly sealed. As such, they may leak into underground water, atmosphere or surface waters thereby causing immense pollution. Such cases are very common especially in northwestern PA due to the progress of drilling processes where there are many older wells. Events such as these are attributed to the lack of proper records on the location of older wells, difficulty in detecting older wells due to rusting of the steel casting or removal of the steel casting in 1940s during the war efforts (Brantley, et al., 2013). Water contamination, air pollution and sedimentation of water bodies collectively impact negative on the health of the public. Hydro fracking causes contamination of surface water which is sued by the public for drinking and also disposes heavy metals and compounds to the environment. These compounds and metals are harmful to the environment. Furthermore, radioactive materials are responsible for human mutation. Benefits of Hydro Fracking Just like the opponents of hydro fracking, proponents have been very vocal and passionate about defending the safety of the process and its effectiveness in generation of reliable energy and spurring economic development. Scientists who defend hydro fracking have demystified that notion that the process causes massive air, water and soil erosion. The argument is that there is a lot of misapplication of scientific methods, lack of context and false analogies surrounding the interpretation of hydro fracking process like the case of Marcellus formation in New York State. Different concerns of critics of hydro fracking have been addressed by establishing that the benefit largely outweighs the negative impacts (Siegel, 2013). With respect to contamination of underground and surface water, supporters of hydro fracking have strongly concurred that contamination of air, water and soil was potentially possible but with a disclaimer that if it is done improperly. It is reported that intense contamination of water cannot cause health problems to drinking water since the contamination with huge volumes of salts, radioactive materials and metals cause water to be very salty and therefore, cannot be consumed by mistake. Furthermore, most of the materials linked to shale-gas development create a false - positive issue where critics make assumptions that compounds in the flow back are caused by shale-gas development without the scientific understanding of how substances flow in water. Moreover, before oil and gas companies are permitted to discharge their flow back, they are heavily regulated to ensure that wastes which are harmful to the soil, water and air are not emitted into the atmosphere. As such, there is no contamination resulting from hydro fracking that is too big for regulation (Siegel, 2013). With respect to the large amounts of water used for drilling the shale, it is prudent to equate the large volume of water against a benchmark in order to answer the question of how large is “large”. The volume of water required in fracking is several million gallons but this volume should be compared to the real amount of water which is available to freely flow in the river and the streams each day. When rivers and streams which are permitted to be sourced by oil and gas companies are put into perspective, several million gallons of water daily is actually a very small amount of water as it is easily replaced. Furthermore, the small drop of water due to hydraulic use cannot match the drop experienced due to drought. As such, it is imperative to make comparative analysis of the results as opposed to make generalizations in a vacuum. There are many concerns which have been raised about the environmental degradation associated with hydro fracking have not yet been debated and resolved to clear the truth about aspects like destruction of infrastructural integrity, changing of rural lifestyles, disruption of climate through heat potent gases. This is because, despite the speculations, there has not been an established scientific claim (Siegel, 2013). The benefits of hydro fracking are plausible as the process has been effective in generation of energy thereby playing a major role in solving an energy problem, as in the case for Pennsylvania. Generation of energy has been influential in accelerating economic development. In the United States, there has been a revolution on the amount of energy produced through drilling and fracking. One direct benefit is the increase in the number of employment opportunities opened in the oil and gas companies. Hydro fracking is prevalent in New York which has a high unemployment rate of 8.2. As such, increase the number of job opening is a significant solution to the unemployment problems (Mazur, 2014). There is a direct link between energy abundance and trade balance. As such, increase in the production of energy has directly enhanced trade balance between the United States and other countries. This is in support of the Energy Information Administration which has predicted that the United States will be the net exporter of natural gas by 2020. This will be realized by discovery and tapping of many shale formation followed by extraction and development of shale gas through hydro fracking (Mazur, 2014). Although indirectly, an increased production of shale gas has a direct impact of reduction of gas prices. Imperatively, a drop will the natural gas prices would result in a decline of electricity prices. This leads to net profit benefits for businessmen running businesses which are power-intensive. Furthermore, domestic users will save their electricity budgets and use the money for other productive ventures. This will lead to an overall improved standards of living. Recommendations for Cause of Action It is possible for the public to be reassured about the benefits of hydro fracking and safety of the process when conducted properly and in consistent with the regulations which has permitted the operations. The government should set a precautionary principle to govern places where there is a perceived burden of industries which employ new technology in generation of power and production of different products. Such industries are known to dispose harmful chemical compounds thereby polluting air, water or land. Imposing of a precautionary principle will require that industries and companies accused of contaminating the air, land and water, accelerating climate change, and causing health hazards to the public to prove it to the necessary authorities beyond any reasonable doubt. Reassuring the public can also be achieved through stringent regulation of the hydro fracking process at the national level. For instance, there should be a revoke of gas and oil exceptions which has been granted from the safe drinking water act. This will see violators of clean water laws be exempted from land drilling leases from both the state and federal government (Colborn, Kwiatkowski, Schultz and Bachran, 2012). References Brantley, S.L., et al., (2014). Water resource impacts during unconventional shale gas development: The Pennsylvania experience, Int. J. Coal Geol. Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M. (2012). Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: an International Journal 17(5):1039-1056. Siegel, D. I., (2013). Pseudoscience and the Shale-Gas Debate in New York State; Implication for Litigation. TheSciTechlawyer. Mazur, A., (2014). How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012? Public Understanding of Science, DOI: 10.1177/0963662514545311. Vidic, R.D., Brantley, S.L., Vandenbossche, J.M., Yoxtheimer, D., Abad, J.D., (2013). Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340, 826. 10.1126/science.1235009. Read More