Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing, fracking, is the process used for extracting natural gas from shale rock beneath the earths surface. During this long process, a well is created by drilling over a mile below the earths surface and then encasing this area in concrete and the shale is fracked with a myriad of chemicals- as well as water- in order to break the shale allowing for easier access to mass amounts of this fossil fuel. In theory, this revolutionary method provides with a phenomenal new fuel. And, in a world desperate for environmentally friendly, renewable, and cheap forms of energy this would seem like a godsend. However, it has reached a controversial status-believed to be the cause of severe groundwater contamination, surface contamination, and earthquakes. Natural gas is not the issue. It is still a very efficient non-renewable resource which could be used to decrease the growing demand for coal in the United States. It emits about half of the carbon dioxide, a fourth of the carbon monoxide, less than 1/1000 of the sulfur dioxide and other particulates (in other words it emits fewer greenhouse gases- helping to curve global warming). That information coupled with the fact that after extensive mining of coal in the United States there are few to no more easily accessible coal deposits. The demand for coal has led to the implementation of a mountain removal method. Its self explanatory in order to provide access to the deposits of coal found deeper below the earths surface. Though natural gas is non-renewable it is proportionally much less hazardous to the environment, and would be a good segue into the use of non-renewable resources. The hazards associated with hydraulic fracturing creating center around the chemicals that are pumped into the ground during the fracking process.

The chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing include hydrogen fluoride, lead, 2-BE, formaldehyde, diesel, naphthalene and chemicals in the BTEX compound group. These are only some of about 50 chemicals used in fracking; many of them can cause severe developmental problems, problems with ones organs, blood cell destruction, and an array of cancers. Once again, in theory, the cement walls encasing the pipes should prevent the leaking of the chemicals used in fracking. However, if the cement is improperly placed or if it is somehow damaged that protective barrier becomes useless. There is a new research topic (based on yet another controversy) about the possibility that the fracking can cause earthquakes. In Ohio, the theory that was developed after an astounding nine earthquakes in this seismically dead area, the only significant change was the fracking well. It is believed that the fluid went beyond the intended levels of penetration and unclamped ancient faults, which resulted in the seismic activity in the area. Perhaps people can overlook a series of earthquakes that for the most part barely reached above the 2.0 on the Richter scale. However, having their tap water catch flame (while incredibly awesome in theory) is terrifying. Water could turn murky, sediment filled, or look relatively normal with a gassy taste- since companies are not legally required to relinquish a list of the chemicals in fracking fluid it can be difficult for water treatment plants to properly filter the water. But, it must be kept in mind that this problem arises not inherently from fracking, but rather from negligence on behalf of the companies. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that they are incapable of knowing that spills on the

surface occur- and therefore do not react accordingly before the chemicals can seep into peoples drinking water. It is perfectly plausible that the cement barriers be damaged, but not that they are used while they are damaged, or a leak has been located within the area. Fracking can only really be done in areas where there are deposits of natural gas. For a long time this was incredibly difficult, however with new ground imaging technology its a bit easier. Shale patches are located all over the United States- the largest one located near North Carolina (Marcellus Shale). Perhaps it is the amount of natural gas available which has encouraged the U.S. to continue and companies like Exxon, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell - to flourish under a volatile industry. In 2011 France became the first country to ban hydraulic fracturing due to the environmental damage it caused (it was difficult to argue in its favor with water catching fire and mass attacks on the industry). Bulgaria followed suit in 2012- this seems to have affected Chevron the most, but their optimistic in the continuation of their business interests introducing fracking to areas like the U.S. Counties like Poland and the Ukraine were not however discouraged by these dramatic decisions. And, will continue to explore the economically rich venues of hydraulic fracturing. Countries in parts of Africa are also exploring the possibilities of this controversial, rapidly expanding international industry. Perhaps in the interest of asking questions, it would be best to wonder who will benefit the most from their decisions, the U.S. or France. Governor Beverly Purdue seems to think that fracking in North Carolina is a good idea, however she acknowledges the risks- and there is a vast amount of people who disagree with her. People are cognizant of the fact that fracking has been stigmatized with

an array of controversy- and a fear of taking the blame for any possible disaster has impeded any absolute decision from taking place. There is almost an impasse created by the idea that research must be done on fracking, but it cant begin until the fracking does, so a decision must be reached. Thought the current governor seems to approve of the idea of fracking after having taken all possible precautions it might not be her call (not to mention the idea of what these precautions are is still being established). As a resident of the area I would say it would be best go ahead with it, but place as many legislative barriers to hold the companies accountable for any damage done that involves fracking fluid (this would imply taking a vast amount of water samples now so as to provide with something to compare water quality to). Ultimately the decision to allow your land to be used as a well rests on the individual homeowners- since they have to be willing to sell the mineral rights to your land for fracking (this is assuming that you still have the mineral rights, since many people buy a house, buying the land above, not the mineral rights). This would greatly benefit the individual economically since companies will pay exorbitant prices- however they are risking a possibly leak in an area incredibly close to the water they most likely use. Economically there could be a significant boom with the commencement of fracking. The workers required to work the area would provide with much needed jobs. And, with the introduction of large numbers of workers, businesses will typically follow. A town that numbers only within the three digits could expand dramatically with the introduction of this industry; areas sitting in the middle of a gas deposit could stand to multiply many times over and to receive an economic boom amounting in the millions if not billions of dollars. As previously stated individuals could also make a significant profit if they happen

to own the mineral rights to their land. Entire areas perhaps benefit most when they are relatively small to begin with- those areas have the space to expand. Fracking is a smart decision economically for countries to make, but it should also be recognized as a risk. As with all newly developed technologies it will be in an experimental stage for a long time- even if companies do not acknowledge this. Since vertical fracking has been virtually eliminated since it caused the most damage for the least pay off the technology was replaced by horizontal fracking which, as it states, drills to the side once it is deep enough within the ground. This change in technique shows that there are changes to be made. Though Gasland was a bit dramatized, and potentially bias, it raised enough contaversy to raise the question about how to proceed. Protesters are incredibly persistent (more than half of the websites I saw were created in some form to shock people into believing that fracking was an inherently horrible thing that was being covered up in some mass conspiracy by both the government and the companies). It is important to realize that the process itself though in an early stage is (considering that technically only 1/1000 people in a fracking zone get water contamination) relatively safeor at least safe enough that if enough legal boundaries are placed, and enough money invested in the further research of the topic this could be safe enough to use at least in some of the largest natural gas deposits. It is important to keep an open mind about this, not because it is a particularly perfect solution to climate change, but rather because it is a cleaner alternative to the use of coal (somehow water contamination- which can be fixed with proper technology- seems like a better idea than mountain top removal).

Considering the youth of this project (it only really kicked off in the 2000s), it is not surprising that this much controversy surrounds it, but it would be a tragedy for peoples misplaced paranoia got in the way of the perfection of a legitimate possibility for a relatively green energy source. Personally, I believe the companies should be held completely accountable for any damage done to an area due to a spill or a leak. Perhaps this would encourage companies to further research the materials used as a barrier- cement is not the only option, and apparently also not the most reliable.

http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2011/04/17/investigation-yields-list-of-chemicals-used-infracking-many-are-known-carcinogens-regulatedpohttp://ehelpfultips.com/list_of_shale_gas_formations_in.htmllutants/ http://www.peoplesworld.org/fracking-banned-in-bulgaria/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/30/france-becomes-first-country-to-banextraction-of-natural-gas-by-fracking/ http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/08-12-04/news-fracking.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=136895815

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/science/some-blame-hydraulic-fracturing-for-earthquakeepidemic.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1324051252H35FQgY4cs/hFIHifTD6IA http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/01/27/guest-post-shale-gas-the-low-carbonoption/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_ENGYSUS_20120202 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/01/25/guest-post-water-contamination-frackingis-not-the-problem/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401 http://www.what-is-fracking.com/