Hydrofracking

Natural Gas Hydraulic Fracturing, colloquially known as Hydrofracking, is a method of extracting natural gasses from beneath the earth’s surface. Put briefly, and hopefully objectively, the process works like this: Steel lined wells are drilled thousands of feet into the Earth’s crust. Eventually, these wells hit a layer of rock called Shale. At this point, the wells change directions and begin digging horizontally through the shale. Since the layer of shale is usually between 50 and 300 feet deep, much more gas can be extracted by extending the well horizontally (for 1,500 to 5,000 feet). Huge amounts of water (more than 1,000,000 gallons) are then pumped through the wells. The water is also mixed with sand and different chemicals before entering the well. The pressure from the water causes the shale to break and form fissures. These fissures, that look like cracks in the shale, then break off into more and more channels- as far as the pressurized water can go. The sand keeps the fissures open so that the natural gas inside can flow back into the well. At the surface the natural gas is collected, refined, and pumped through pipelines to consumers. The recovered water is sent to treatment plants, reused in fracking, etc.

Hydrofracking has its share of fans as well as those who appose it. I will try and provide the some basic reasons behind each side’s position, but do not claim objectivity in this section.

Benefits of Hydrofracking:

Hydrofracking will move us closer to energy independence. By satisfying more of our energy needs with resources within U.S. we will be less dependent on unstable regions/MIddle East

Job creation. The fracking industry employs about 1.2 million in the U.S.

Cons of Hydrofracking:

Water pollution. This can come in several forms. The first 1,000 or so feet of the well is lined with cement outside of the steel to prevent water leakage. However, there are concerns that water leaking from other places in the well could contaminate drinking water- especially since aquifers are often close to the layer of shale. Once the water returns to the surface it is pumped into large pools before treatment. There are accusations that the pools leak into groundwater, or that the water is directly pumped back into streams.

May cause earthquakes. Although these are probably minor seismic events, there have been reports in the U.K. and U.S.

Companies are not required to disclose which and how much chemicals are added to the water. This is a complicated issue. The mixtures are often made uniquely for each well based on the geological makeup of the ground underneath. This would make it impractical for the companies to disclose the contents of each well, each time it is used. However, there are reports of toxic chemicals being used. Since the wells require millions of gallons of water, there would undoubtedly be thousands of gallons of these chemicals added. The mere fact that the companies are not required to disclose this information, coupled with the accusations of contamination, is discomforting in itself.

In Conclusion: while researching this issue I read an article titled “Fracking Pros And Cons: Weighing In On Hydraulic Fracturing,” on the Huffington Post ‘Internet Newspaper.’ They explained one of the cons of Hydrofracking: “Leaks more emissions than coal.” It states, “Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.” They also explained one of the pros: “Burns cleaner than other fossil fuels.” It states, “Researchers at MIT found that replacing coal power plants with natural gas plants could work as part of a plan to reduce greenhouse emissions by more than 50 percent.”

I think that this sums up the issue in a broader context (and perhaps says something about the H.P.) That is: People need to be more educated. After reading this article I found myself more confused than anything else, and needed to look elsewhere. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report stating, “EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels.” This is the information I am basing my personal opinion on, though, I recognize the complexities. Yes, it seems there are great health risks. Yes, this industry is providing much needed jobs. If a company were trying to begin Hydrofracking in my community I would certainly oppose it.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/EF35BD26A80D6CE3852579600065C94E

http://gothamist.com/2011/12/11/epas_report_on_hydrofracking_in_wyo.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/fracking-pros-cons_n_1084147.html#s524124