Hydraulic Fracturing = Fracking
I have
long been an advocate for looking more closely at the risks of Hydraulic
fracturing. Friends and Facebook posts share the dangers associated with “fracking,”
sometimes posting spills and leaks or speculation about risks. I decided to
research online some of the information. It is difficult for me to believe TV
ads sponsored by the oil and gas industry since they have been hesitant to
reveal the actual toxic chemicals used in the process and have a vested interested in continuing the practice. I spoke with a state
representative several years ago about the potential dangers of fracking and was not shocked to
hear him repeat the talking points for supporting fracking claiming it is
environmentally safe because the drilling companies deem it so... and is good for the state and country for better economic
and national security.
Most
simply, fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a method used when drilling in
shale to extract natural gas. The process takes millions of gallons of water
and is usually combined with various chemical compounds.
Many
complex factors come into play as we look at the safety and issues surrounding “fracking.”
They include:
· the economics of the practice,
· perceptions about the
implications for national security
of relying on domestic or imported energy,
· the consequences for climate change from
the emissions of different amounts of greenhouse gases from different energy
strategies,
· the positive and
negative implications of fracking for employment
and quality of life in rural communities, and
· the scientific evidence about the environmental
consequences of the practice, including risks to water availability, water
and air quality, and local ecosystems.
-------------------
The
following information is directly extracted from the executive summary of that
report:
· Hydraulic fracturing
is standard practice for extracting natural gas from unconventional sources, including
coal-beds, shale, and tight sands, and is increasingly being applied to
conventional sources to improve their productivity. It has been reported that
hydraulic fracturing is used on 90% of all oil and gas wells drilled in the
United States, although insufficient data are available to confirm this
estimate.
· To better identify
and understand what the key issues are, the Pacific Institute conducted extensive
interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from
state and federal agencies, academia, industry, environmental groups, and
community-based organizations from across the United States.
· For the purpose of
this report, we use a broad definition of hydraulic fracturing to include
impacts associated with well construction and completion, the hydraulic
fracturing process itself, and well production and closure. Despite the
diversity of viewpoints among those interviewed, there was surprising agreement
about the range of concerns and issues associated with hydraulic fracturing.
· Interviewees identified
a broad set of social, economic, and environmental concerns, foremost among
which are impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the availability and quality of
water resources. It especially examines the impacts of hydraulic fracturing and
unconventional natural gas extraction on water resources and identifies areas
where more information is needed. Our focus throughout the report is on shale
gas, although we discuss other unconventional natural gas sources where
information is readily available.
· In particular, key
water-related concerns identified by the interviewees included (1) water withdrawals;
(2) groundwater contamination associated with well drilling and production; (3)
wastewater management; (4) truck traffic and its impacts on water quality; (5)
surface spills and leaks; and (6) storm-water management.
· Much of the media
attention about hydraulic fracturing and its risk to water resources has centered
on the use of chemicals in the fracturing fluids and the risk of groundwater contamination.
The mitigation strategies identified to address this concern have centered on disclosure
and, to some extent, the use of less toxic chemicals. Risks associated with
fracking chemicals, however, are not the only issues that must be addressed.
Indeed, interviewees more frequently identified the overall water requirements
of hydraulic fracturing and the quantity and quality of wastewater generated as
key issues.
· Most significantly, a
lack of credible and comprehensive data and information is a major impediment
to identify or clearly assess the key water-related risks associated with
hydraulic fracturing and to develop sound policies to minimize those risks. Due
to the nature of the business, industry has an incentive to keep the specifics
of their operations secret in order to gain a competitive advantage, avoid
litigation, etc. Additionally, there are limited number of peer-reviewed,
scientific studies on the process and its environmental impacts. While much has
been written about the interaction of hydraulic fracturing and water resources,
the majority of this writing is either industry or advocacy reports that have
not been peer-reviewed. As a result, the discourse around the issue is largely
driven by opinion. This hinders a comprehensive analysis of the potential
environmental and public health risks and identification of strategies to
minimize these risks.
· Finally, the dialog
about hydraulic fracturing has been marked by confusion and obfuscation due to
a lack of clarity about the terms used to characterize the process. For
example, the American Petroleum Institute, as well as other industry groups,
using a narrow definition of fracking, argues that there is no link between
their activities and groundwater contamination, despite observational evidence
of groundwater contamination in Dimock, Pennsylvania and Pavillion, Wyoming
that appears to be linked to the integrity of the well casings and of
wastewater storage. Additional work is needed to clarify terms and definitions
associated with hydraulic fracturing to support more fruitful and informed
dialog and to develop appropriate energy, water, and environmental policy.
The
Pacific Institute analysis concludes that a lack of credible and comprehensive
data makes it much more difficult to identify or clearly assess the key
water-related risks associated with hydraulic fracturing and to develop sound
policies to minimize those risks. That conclusion was stated in 2012.
-----------------
He
writes:
“In
fact, even with the limited research done to date, there is clear scientific
evidence that fracking not only can — but already has — led to groundwater
contamination, including a new study just released this week.
Here
are just seven separate lines of evidence:
1.
As
far back as 1984, the USEPA reported on a clear case in which hydraulic
fracturing fluids and natural gas from production operations contaminated a
groundwater well in West Virginia, ‘rendering it unusable.’
2.
The
USEPA issued a draft report in 2011 on groundwater contamination in Pavillion,
Wyoming, that showed extensive presence of fracking chemicals (natural and synthetic)
in shallow and deep groundwater systems. Some of this contamination may have
resulted from faulty wells drilled through groundwater aquifers; some of it may
have resulted from surface seepage of fracking waste fluids escaping from badly
designed and managed wastewater pits.
3.
The
US Geological Survey Report issued its own independent assessment of the
Pavillion, Wyoming groundwater testing that also showed high concentrations of
several chemicals used in fracking.
4.
A
Canadian groundwater contamination report described a “hydraulic fracturing
incident” in 2011 in which errors in well drilling and management led to the
release of fracking chemicals into groundwater including isopropanolamine,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, petroleum hydrocarbons, and more.
5.
A
Duke University peer-reviewed study showed that fracked groundwater systems
pose risks to other groundwater systems that were thought to be, but were not,
hydraulically separate. This study clearly shows the risks in some groundwater
geologies of cross contamination.
6.
Even
more compelling, another peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences documented “systematic evidence for methane
contamination of drinking water associated with shale gas extraction.”
7.
The
latest peer-reviewed study, released this week [June 2013], also shows strong
evidence that increased concentrations of methane and other hydrocarbons in
drinking water wells are directly correlated with proximity to gas wells in the
Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania.”
“This
growing evidence of a real threat to some of the nation’s valuable groundwater
makes it all the more disturbing to learn that the US EPA is halting its own
independent assessment of groundwater contamination from fracking in the
Pavillion gas fields of Wyoming and even worse, turning that research over to a
project funded by the fracking company itself. This smells rotten and is not
how independent research should be done.”
--------------
What is in this chemical cocktail injected
into the wells to assist the extraction process? Here is one list
from a company doing fracking in Wyoming (posted in 2011):
-------------
-------------
“What concerns me the most about fracking is
the almost complete lack of comprehensive study of health risks,” said Susan Nagel,
PhD, a researcher of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s
Health at the University of Missouri in Columbia, whose work is focused on the
effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment.
Concerned
Health Professionals (NY) spelled out fracking-related health risks in the open
letter, which was signed by 25 health and medical organizations, including the
New York Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung
Association of New York, as well as more than 200 individual health professionals.
The letter points to new data on potential health dangers of fracking, and
follows a similar call for a ban from the Medical Society of the State of New
York (MSSNY).
1.
Harmful chemicals can
contaminate water at fracking sites. Hormone-disrupting chemicals were among the
contaminants found in water supplies at fracking sites. Of the chemicals used
in the fracking process, many are substances that can act like the human
hormones estrogen and androgen while others block the activity of these
hormones. In a study
of 39 groundwater samples - http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/en.2013-1697
- taken
near fracking sites by Dr. Nagel and others, they found higher levels of
chemicals that could block estrogen, compared to specimens not near fracking
sites.
2.
Methane gas can leak
at fracking wells.
Even new fracking
wells can leak, and over time more of the wells leak — releasing methane
gas, according to researchers at the advocacy group Physicians, Scientists
& Engineers for Healthy Energy. Odorless and colorless, methane gas is not
only explosive; it can also cause health problems if it contaminates air and
drinking water. Methane contamination can cause a person to feel tired or dizzy
and have headaches. Long-term effects of these gas leaks are not yet clear.
3.
Earthquakes can
result from fracking-waste disposal. Fracking waste injection into deep wells
may have triggered earthquakes in Oklahoma, according to the U.S.
Geological Survey. The earthquakes have yet to be directly linked to
hydrofracturing. In New York, health experts warned in the May 29th letter that
earthquakes from fracking — or fracking waste disposal — could affect the
drinking water supply for millions in New York City. "Seismic damage to
these aqueducts that results in a disruption of supply of potable water to the
New York City area would create a catastrophic public health crisis," the
letter notes.
4.
Radioactive materials
can contaminate water after fracking. Fracking wastewater has been found to
contain radioactive
substances, by Lara Haluszczak and others at Pennsylvania State University,
in waste that flows back to the surface after blasting to recover natural gas
deposits. While underground, this naturally occurring radiation does not pose a
health risk. Once it emerges in fracking wastewater, however, analysis by
graduate student researcher Andrew Nelson and others at the University of Iowa
found that radioactive
radium contaminated water sources. Long-term exposure to radium raises the
risk of developing lymphoma, leukemia, and bone cancer, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
5.
Air pollution levels
may rise in areas where there is fracking. Levels of cancer-causing pollutants
like silica dust, ozone, and the chemical benzene should be monitored more
carefully to see if they are on the
rise in fracking areas, according to Rachael Rawlins at the University of
Texas, Austin. The pollutants come from fracked gas wells, gas that escapes,
and even fracking pits that store waste. This contaminated air is potentially
dangerous for people with health problems like asthma, and for children.
According to an April 2014 Physicians,
Scientists & Engineers for Health Energy report published in Environmental Health Perspectives,
studies suggest fracking contributes to air pollution known to be associated
with rising health risk rates. The authors noted more research is needed to
understand possible health outcomes faced by people living near fracking
operations.
Independent research must be involved to produce facts we
can trust. Government, University, Industry, and even private research is often
the recipient of oil and gas corporate funds which may bias findings.
This is
just the tip of the proverbial iceberg in term of considering the evidence
about fracking. Most of the information used from posts and articles are direct
extracts from the original material. One of the reasons it is difficult to
trust government officials, politicians, and agencies who are supposed to
protect the welfare of the public is that many of those same people have come
from the oil and gas industry. I am also reminded that then Vice President
Cheney made it easier for drilling by lifting the EPA regulations and oversight
on air and water. It would be good for all to have those regulations put back
into play and empower the EPA with some authority to do the job initially
assigned to it. As much as I would like to trust the integrity of public
officials, I find it difficult and try to find out as much as I can about what
they are saying. John Hutchinson jhutch888@yahoo.com
-------- Additional information and links---------
Chemicals used in fracking:
---------
List of 78 Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in Pennsylvania
-------------
Fracking Fluid Contains at Least 8 Highly Toxic Chemicals, Many Unknowns
-------------
What remains is the light of consciousness in which
perceptions, experiences, thoughts, and feelings come and go. That is Being,
that is the deeper, true I. When I know myself as that, whatever happens in my
life is no longer of absolute but only of relative importance. I honor it, but
it loses its absolute seriousness, its heaviness. The only thing that
ultimately matters is this: Can I sense my essential Beingness, the I Am, in
the background of my life at all times: To be more accurate, can I sense my
essential identity as consciousness itself? Or am I losing myself in what
happens, losing myself in the mind, in the world?”
