With speculations of an imminent approach of peak oil and a diminishing supply of the world’s fossil fuels, natural gas is becoming an increasingly important energy source to consider for our country’s energy independence and future. The idea that the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania is the “Saudi Arabia” of natural gas is tempting, and the discovery of the Halliburton hydraulic fracturing process has made natural gas extraction a much more viable alternative in America. After watching Gasland and the Truthland industry response and looking further into secondary scientific sources, I have decided that I am not opposed to shale gas development or the hydraulic fracturing process itself. I am, however, strongly opposed to the lack of federal regulation concerning environmental air and water pollution from which the natural gas industry is currently exempt.
In a brief overview, hydraulic fracturing is an unconventional natural gas
extraction method that requires millions of gallons of “fracking fluid,”
containing mostly water and sand as well as a range of up to 596+ chemicals,
to be injected underground to crack the shale formation and tap into the
natural gas reservoir (Gasland).
Although the water input required seems huge, it is actually much less than
most other mining/extracting processes (Truthland).
As shown in the figure on the left, the actual fracturing zone of the shale
rock occurs several thousand feet past the groundwater table, so
contamination of potable or drinking water wells (which would be separated
from the cracked shale formation by thousands of feet of solid rock) through
the fracking directly is not a major concern (Brantley). The real problem is
that fracking in an area introduces additional industrial activity that goes
beyond the drilling – such as trucking, storage, and the disposal of
sediment sludge and contaminated flowback and produced water, which too
often is done inadequately due to the lack of government regulation and
exemption from the Clean Air and Water legislation that applies to other
industries. The yellowish jar of toxic chemicals as featured in
Gasland from surface water in
Demick, PA, is evidence that several companies have been cutting corners and
using the least expensive way to dispose of wastewaters in order to keep
natural gas prices low and maximize profits. The 2005 Energy Bill, which
passed through the Bush administration under Cheney, outrageously granted
oil and natural gas companies exemption from the federal Clean Air and Water
Acts as “small source” pollutants in what is known as the “Halliburton
loophole”, effectively allowing drilling companies to get away with dumping
flowback and produced water into waterways untreated (Gasland).
Many anti-shale protestors are against fracking within the Marcellus shale due to the cases of water contamination that have appeared in other areas after the development of drilling sites. The fact that industry representatives have repeatedly made the claim that “no investigations have shown natural gas contamination” and that the industry provides “no real, credible threat” has understandably caused skepticism and opposition to shale development, especially as communities in Gasland showed animals’ hair falling out, townspeople getting sick, and yellowy, dubious water coming out of faucets. Although fracking fluid does not infiltrate drinking water during the extraction of shale gas, improper storage/waste disposal and accidents do present threats to the environment and public health that underlie many of these issues. For instance, analyses of water samples in Louisiana, where casings were insufficient to withstand storm weather, showed toxic contamination of waterways from heavy metals like barium, arsenic, and lead – so much so that individuals who drank well water from their properties had to be hospitalized and were even thought to be poisoned by their spouses (Gasland). This contamination resulted as little to no protection was offered from storm surges like Hurricane Rita and Katrina, which effectively spread out sediment sludge and produced water into the surrounding neighborhoods (Gasland). This and several other contamination problems that have been pegged to be associated with shale gas development are not directly due to hydraulic fracturing but rather through inadequate industry standards stemming from a lack of federal oversight and regulation.
If these concerns were addressed through the elimination of the one-sided industry exemptions and increased federal oversight of hydraulic fracturing, the mining of natural shale gas would provide a viable source for a cleaner-burning transition fuel with minimal negative environmental impacts. Since the 1990s, the industry has already provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the country whether directly or through associated work. According to the American Natural Gas Alliance reports, over 600,000 direct or induced jobs were created as of 2010, with that number expected to reach 800,000 and 1.8 million by 2015 as shale gas development expands (ANGA). Moreover, in January 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimated that the Marcellus shale alone contains up to 141 trillion cubic feet of gas in reserves (Penn State Extension) – which, if harnessed, would be enough to power every home in America for the next 50 years (Brantley). These economic benefits, coupled with freeing the country from foreign dependency on fossil fuels, provide a strong motivation for the extraction of natural gas from shale formations.
Even though parts of the industry Truthland film seemed to be a little forced/contrived, the experts that the “Pennsylvania mom and farmer” did interview made it clear that the water contamination problem itself is not caused by the fracking process but rather how the companies handled related issues such as waste disposal and the integrity of cement casings near the top soil layers. Therefore, while I support the extraction of shale gas as a transition fuel, I would strongly argue that the gas companies involved should be subject to the same environmental and health hazard regulations in place for other industries to ensure clean and safe drinking water.
Works Cited
- Brantley, Susan L., and Anna Meyendorff. “The Facts on Fracking.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.
- Gasland. Dir. Josh Fox. Pennsylvania, 2010. DVD.
- "How Much Natural Gas Can the Marcellus Shale Produce?" Penn State Extension. Penn State’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research, 05 Feb. 2012. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.
- “U.S. Shale Gas Benefits.” ANGA. America’s Natural Gas Alliance, 2014. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.