The process of hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as “hydrofracking”) was first used in the Mt. Airy Quarry located in North Carolina in the early 1900s in order to obtain granite from the bedrock underground. Beginning in 1949 and continuing for the next 40 years, scientists improved the function of hydraulic fracturing in order to obtain the desirable natural resources trapped in the rock beneath the Earth’s surface, finally debuting the process we know today in 1988. Oil shale, composed of organic matter including kerogen, illite, kaolinite, and smectite, must be sucked up from the pores of the clay, along with the similar resource, shallow coalbed methane (CBM), providing the United States with a national alternative to foreign fuels.
With a high amount of pressure, a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals, is blasted down the hydrofracking well; originally, the mixture was limited only to water and sand, but scientists
began adding different chemicals to thicken the water, lessen friction within the well, or eliminate bacteria, as well as many other reasons. With the liquid inside the wellbore, its pressure is intended to cause the surrounding rock to fracture. Once the wellbore has reached maximum capacity, the proppants (which can range from sand to ceramic or aluminum beads) to prop open the newly created fractures. Following this procedure, the liquid is returned to the surface for disposal or treatment, while the proppants are left beneath the ground to allow the gas and oil to flow (Chesapeake Energy).
While some Americans see the process of hydraulic fracturing as an innovative and futuristic way to obtain the natural resources we need at a more local level, others worry about the environmental impacts of the process, unable to see beyond these concerns to the benefits hydrofracking offers. According to The United States Environmental Protection Agency, potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing sights and their conducted work can be stress on surface and ground water as a result of its use for providing effective pressure to the system; another possibility is the contamination of drinking water in case of a wastewater spill or an error in the sight’s construction. It is the resurfaced water previously used underground for pressurizing that worries the American public and the EPA alike as its disposal is neither simple nor harmless.
While the EPA’s national law enforces that hydraulic fracturing sights may not dump their wastewater into national United States waterways, they must therefore provide companies with the means to dispose of this used liquid, which could potentially contain TDS (total dissolved solids), natural radioactive particles, or metals, inevitably harmful to humans as well as unaccustomed areas of the environment. There are three possible forms of disposal of this wastewater: firstly, if the water is low enough in its pollutant content, it may be used as a supplement for freshwater sources. If its pollutant levels exceed EPA standards, the process of underground injection can be applied, yet this will not eliminate the entirety of the wastewater amount. Its remainder must be sent to either a public or private treatment facility for final disposal; however, the EPA has discovered in recent years that these facilities are not effectively equipped for such a delicate and potentially harmful disposal process, and they are seeking to offer improvements within the next few years (EPA).
As of 2007, over 4,000 hydraulic fracturing sights were operating in the United States, and the number has continued to grow thanks to the increasing fuel prices coming from overseas (Natural Gas Americans). The map of the American Northeast identifies the central locations of shale reserves, evidencing that many of the most used hydrofracking facilities are located in
North Carolina and Maryland (including the cited source, Chesapeake Energy). However, the Southeast is also home to many known location of underground shale gas and oil, with states including Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and even stretching into the Midwest to Kansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota. Although its effectiveness as a process and its relationship with the environment are still being investigated by the EPA, the fact that hydraulic fracturing provides better local resources for fuels is inarguable.
Sources:
Chesapeake Energy, Inc. http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com
Geology.com. http://geology.com/articles/hydraulic-fracturing/
Natural Gas Americas. “A Short History of Hydraulic Fracturing.” 21 Jul. 2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2012.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing.” 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2012.
If this process were to reach your home, would you be an advocate for it?
you really went into the history, which was great because i wasn’t aware of when it began! I thought i was a much more modern process than it actually is.