Hydraulic Fracturing: Gloomy or Bright Horizon?

Hydraulic Fracturing: Gloomy or Bright Horizon?

Cancer, birth defects, and illness; all three of these have been reported to have increased rates near areas that have undergone fracturing. Yet Hydraulic fracturing in the United States has recently seen a boom in its use and proven itself as a proficient way to both expand the volume of recoverable hydrocarbons from an underground formation as well as do this in a safe and environmentally responsible way; however it has been significantly limited by state and local governments in the areas where this method of recovery can be implemented. In order to open these restricted areas up to fracturing we must first dispel by strong lobbying efforts and distribution of factual material the common misconceptions about the environmental and health hazards such as higher rates of cancer and birth defects allegedly caused by fracking operations. Once the negative claims have been debunked I will be able to soundly prove that hydraulic fracturing holds the potential to greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil as well as bolster our economy.

First a brief overview of the origins of hydraulic fracturing and what exactly it entails. The first recorded event of a primitive form of fracturing came about in 1866 when a man by the name of Edward Roberts was awarded U.S. patent number 59,936 for a design that would come to be known as the Roberts Torpedo (“Shooters”, 2015). Roberts Torpedo was a long cylindrical canister that was filled full of nitroglycerin and lowered down the shaft of an oil/gas well. Once the canister was lowered to the desired depth, the nitroglycerin was then detonated in an effort to crack or make fissures in the rock formation deep below the surface. Once these fissures in the rock are created it allows oil and gas trapped in the rock to move more freely to the wellbore, a hole drilled by a drilling rig, at which time it can flow to the surface and be recovered. Fast forward 83 years to Duncan, Oklahoma and the first modern application of commercial hydraulic fracturing is being undertaken. The whole process of hydraulic fracturing has come a long way since its inception midway through the 19th century; nitroglycerin has been replaced by much less volatile chemicals and fracturing is used on over 90 percent of wells in the United States alone (“Shooters”, 2015).

        One of the many misconceptions drummed up by anti-fracking groups is that fracturing is a threat to the environment and everything inhabiting that environment. One example of this kind of thinking can be noted in an excerpt from the Guardian states, “Without new tougher regulations on water use, she warned industry could be on a "collision course" with other water users” implying an almost apocalyptic scene where drilling rigs loom ominously in the distance while  a war over water rages. While this may bring your mind to forge thoughts of self-preservation you must take a deep breath and ask, how much water is really used in hydraulic fracturing? 4.5 million gallons, that is the amount of water that is typically needed to fracture a deep shale gas or oil well (Trican Well Service,2014). While no one can sanely argue that this is anywhere close to a small amount of water, what one can do is put that number into perspective. 4.5 million of anything is not easily put into perspective, however it is more easily done if you’ve ever lived in a city, plugged any electronic device into the wall, or even driven past a golf course. I say this because New York City uses 4.5 million gallons of water in six minutes, a power plant uses that same amount of water in twelve hours, and those golf courses that stay green all year long use this same amount of water in twenty five days (Trican Well Service, 2014). This number of 4.5 million becomes much easier to swallow when we recognize that the same amount of water is being dumped out on the ground to keep the grass green

Another water related environmental issue that anti-fracturing groups persist in communicating is the notion of how the wastewater from fractured wells is handled and disposed of, more particularly how it is being improperly handled and disposed of. This is quite a serious allegation if it comes to be true seeing as this wastewater is not just water contaminated with bits of dirt and rock but rather water that has interacted and mixed with highly volatile and hazardous chemicals used to aid in fracturing rock. In an article by Inside Climate News, the author states, “Today EPA confirmed what communities living with fracking have known for years: fracking pollutes drinking water”(par4). It is important to explain how this “contamination” can or better yet cannot occur. When a well is drilled, a series of barriers are put into place in order to both prevent the collapse of the well as well as to prevent any fluids going down the well or coming out of it to escape into the surrounding rock and soil layers. These barriers are steel pipes (casing) that are usually two or more layers thick at the portion of the well closest to the surface (200-300 meters deep) with cement filling the space between casing. This barrier serves to protect surrounding groundwater supplies from contamination by drilling fluids in addition to water with higher salt content from seeping into the drinking water supply which is usually found at depths shallower than 200 meters. A production casing, a single pipe with a diameter of seven inches or less, is eventually placed inside the surface casing and is run the full depth of the well and is then cemented into place. It is important to note here that the typical shale gas well is drilled to a depth between two and three thousand meters while as previously stated, drinking water is normally found at depths less than 200 meters (Worstall, 2011). With these barriers in place to protect the freshwater supply in addition to the sheer distance between it and the fracking zone it brings into question the above mentioned claim, “fracking pollutes drinking water” made by the EPA. This becomes even more questionable when one simply considers the geology of the rock as noted in an article in Forbes when the author states “as the gas would have to pass through millions of tons of impermeable rock. If the rock was that porous, neither the water nor the gas would have been there in the first place.” (Worstall, 2011).  However, in the 2010 documentary, Gasland, a man is filmed in his kitchen lighting the water coming from his sink on fire. The film explains that this phenomenon was the result of fracking activity adjacent to the man’s home cracking the rock allowing methane to seep into the man’s water well. After the release of the movie, Colorado regulators opened an investigation on the particular well featured in the film and came to the conclusion that the methane was naturally occurring and that the water well had been drilled through four coal deposits which were loaded with methane (Trican Well Service, 2014).

...