Table of Contents
Hydraulic fracturing also known as fracking could be defined as the process of pumping fluid through a well in order to break rocks that contain hydrocarbons in order to elevate gas production (Jasechko and Perrone 1). Fracking is a popular means to obtain oil because it has made originally unreachable oil and gas reserves that were being held in shale rock attainable (Aczel and Karen 1). Hydraulic fracturing has drastically increased, according to Jasechko and Perrone, from 2000 to 2015. In fact, gas obtained through the means of hydraulic fracturing accounts for 25 percent of the total domestic natural gas production within the United States with fracking’s influence still increasing (Chen et al.).
Although hydraulic fracturing has greatly increased the quantity of fossil fuels at America’s disposal fracking has dangerous drawbacks. One major problem of fracking is that it requires “the withdrawal of 2.3-3.8 million gallons (8.7-14.4 milliliters) of water per single well” (Chen et al.). It also needs to be noted that the amount of water that is used depends on several factors. “In general, the deeper the well is, the more water is needed for the fracking process” (Chen et al.). Not only is the water used in the fluid for the fracking process, the waste water produced by the fracking must be treated or combined with plenty of water in order to lower the fluid’s total dissolved solids and other content to acceptable range, which is very expensive and uses a lot more resources such as water (Chen et al.). It is “estimated that the global water withdrawal for energy production constitutes 15% of the world’s total water consumption…” (Kondash et al.). Therefore, fracking is drastically depleting water reserves, in fact hydraulic fracturing has already created issues on the topic of water availability especially in dry areas like the western United States, where water quantity is limited (Kondash et al.).
Even though hydraulic fracturing usage of water is less then one percent, some states use more water for fracking then others (Chen et al.). Take for example the state of Texas. Texas, which has wet, and dry seasons total water usage rose to approximately 125 percent from 36,000-acre feet during 2008 to around 81,500-acre feet in 2011 (Chen et al.). While dry seasons occur, the taking of large amounts of water for hydraulic fracturing could drastically limit the amount of water available for humans, farming and animals (Chen et al.).
127 our experts are availableright now
Changing the subject to fracking fluid, about 10 to 80 percent of the applied fluid can return to the surface as waste water (Chen et al.). This waste water “contains brine, fracking fluid, additives, hydrocarbons as suspended and dissolved constituents from shale formation and sometimes naturally occurring radioactive materials” and the more time the fluid takes to return to the surface the more concentrated this fluid tends to be (Chen et al.). Due to all these chemicals being in the water, the waste water is typically kept within onsite pits or tanks to be treated at a different time either at that location or another facility in order to reduce the fluid’s toxicity and decrease, not to eliminate its influence on the environment. Unfortunately, shale gas waste water usually contains lots of chlorine along with many other dissolved solids (Olmstead et al. 1). This makes waste water hard to treat and the creation of well pads, pipelines and roads can raise the amount of sediment runoff and TSS (silt, rotting organic matter, manufacturing wastes and sewage that is able to be cleaned out with a good filter) (Osborn et al. 1).
Companies that use fracking claim that the foam in the fluid used for fracking reduces water use and leak-off rate. The companies also claim that the foam also improves “fluid recovery efficiency” even though using this approach is costlier, more surface pump pressure will also be needed, and less fuel will be obtained (Chen et al). The method of using fluid for hydraulic fracturing is seen as environmentally safe due to the current environmental impact of the gel being a mystery. Also, the potassium chloride embedded in the gel is a nonthreatening health issue at small amounts. Companies also like to note that the biocides used in the fluid, for instance glutaraldehyde is in the gel to destroy bacterial growth. The increase of bacteria in the same area as organic materials within the fracturing fluid can create acidic by products and enzymes that may negatively interact with gel formation and thereby decreasing the fluid’s effectiveness (Chen et al.).
The toxins in the fluid matter because the distance of ground water wells and a contaminated mechanism linked to fracking is needed in order to figure out where contaminated wells are possibly located (Olmstead et al.). This is because the portion of waste water that stays deep underground may allow fracturing fluid or natural gas to rise and contaminate ground water resulting in a decrease in water quality (Chen et al.). Unfortunately, it needs to be added that there are many ways for chemicals in fracking fluid to get into surface and ground water (Kassotis et al. 2). Some of these ways are during spills while moving the fluid, before and after the process of fracking itself, while disposing the waste water. Also, in cases of failing well casing and other operational problems in deserted wells. This helps to make a case that underground movement of the fracking fluid is possible (Kassotis et al. 2). This means that the toxins in the fracking fluid can travel poisoning ground water in more areas then their set location. The ground water then can penetrate human drinking water supply and therefore, poison human drinking water in fact “in a 2011 draft report, the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded that chemicals used in natural gas operations had contaminated ground water and domestic water supply in Pavillion, Wyoming” (Kassotis et al. 2).
Although impacts such as toxicity of water is kept within the ground, from the fluid and the shear amount of water used in hydraulic fracturing the United States has no “comprehensive national framework to control, monitor and assess the specific environmental and health impacts of fracking” (Aczel and Makuch 1). Also discussed in the same article, the regulation of fracking depends on each state. The law that allows this to happen is referred to as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA, more precisely, demands states to perform an environmental impact assessment (EIA) before the companies start fracking, unless those companies appeal for an exemption (Aczel and Makuch 2). Some of these exemptions include drilling in an area in which drilling has occurred and that area has been a good site for five years. As well as if companies provide the EPA with disclosure on the potentially bad environmental impacts in advance. In addition to how these issues could be less impactful or stopped and helps to inform the public and the government before the project starts (Aczel and Makuch 2). In other words, the EPA is a process created to expose possible environmental issues of a drilling project and lessen these impacts before the project can begin.
There is some research that states that fracking poses a huge risk both environmentally and health wise, nevertheless all research agrees that fracking poses risk (Aczel and Makuch 3). It is also noted in the article, and already has been claimed in the essay before, that the closer the water source is to a fracking site the higher the chance of contamination of ground water including drinking well water (Aczel and Makuch 3). A study was done during 2000 to 2014 on the distance of monitored oil and gas wells that were creating hydrocarbons was done on domestic and public wells that supplied groundwater (Olmstesd et al. 2). The results of the 14-year study was that a lot of the domestic groundwater wells checked within 2000 to 2014 are 2 km of one or more hydraulic fractured wells (Olmstead et al. 3). Also added, was that high amounts of collocated groundwater and fracked wells were in places where oil and gas exist in “low-permeability formations…”, note that the data calculated horizontal distance. Using the vertical distance, the wells were less then 2 km from the same fracking wells (Olmstead et al. 3).
Although the EPA, according to Aczel and Makuch, tells companies to disclose possible environmental impacts that the organization’s fracking practices may cause, “there are no federal disclosure standards mandating hydraulic fracturing companies to disclose a list of their toxic chemicals” (Chen et al.). More specifically, fracking was excluded form many federal regulations in the year 2005, some of these acts include the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act as well as the Clean Air Act (Kassotis et al. 2). Due to not having complete knowledge of all the chemicals that are applied in hydraulic fracturing, it becomes problematic when assessing health and environmental issues. Not to mention that every “stage requires tens of thousands of barrels of water which can total up to several million gallons per well” (Chen et al.). Therefore, the policies involving fracking is very loose and mainly composed of disclosure documentation rater then stopping an operation if it is deemed unsafe for the public.
Taking a closer look at the chemicals produced in fracking “Josephine Brine Treatment Inc., a treatment plant, Ba was detected with a mean of 27.3mg/l, 14 times EPA’s maximum concentration limit in drinking water” diving into the limit further, this is 4 times the limit for men, 4.7 times the limit for women, 9 times the limit for children and is 1.3 and 6.7 times EPA’s limit for the protection of aquatic health (Chen et al.). This is impactful because the presence of brine in drinking water could be linked to the increase in cancerous diseases. Despite this, criteria have not been made by the EPA foe observing the amount of brine in drinking water (Chen et al.). The brine in the drinking water has a correlation with chloride chemical which is also found in the drinking water (Olmstead et al. 1).
According to Osborn et al. a rise or changing in chloride levels can directly damage aquatic environments. Chloride can also move heavy metals, phosphates as well as additional chemicals existing in sediment. Also, other substances such as “TSS (silt, decaying organic matter, industrial wastes and sewage that can be trapped by a fine filter) in surface water” (Osborn et al. 2). TSS serves as a problem when it is in surface water because it can decrease the amount of sunlight available in the water. As well as increase the temperature of the water causing the decrease in oxygen levels and clarity of the water. Solids from TSS can also block and rust pipes and machinery for people using water, causing higher cost to clean the water (Osborn et al. 2).
The rise in solids dissolved solids in the water can kill fresh fish species like brook trout and has led to the rise in products associated with “carcinogenic disinfection,” which raises the amount of bromine present in already filtered water (Kuwayama et al.). So, in 2011 the PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) required fracking industries to document all chemicals that were used in the fracking process that could possibly be in waste water (Chen et al.). From then on, the tighter instruction caused some waste water treatment facilities to stop or decrease obtaining uncommon natural gas fluids for fracking (Chen et al.).
Unfortunately, it has been found that diesel fuel which contains benzene, toluene, ethylene and xylene (BTEX) is in the water due to fracking (Chen et al.). During the fracking process BTEX acts as an additive to raise effectiveness in moving proppants in fracking fluid. BTEX is readily movable and is toxic (Chen et al.). Even though the 2004 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) banned the use of chemicals in BTEX, BTEX still occurs naturally due to the fracking process itself, in fact BTEX was the main component found in the oil wells. Continuing with the substance BTEX, during 2009 to 2010, out of 4000 oil and natural gas wells allowed to be in Marcellus Shale Pennsylvania, 630 had broken environmental health and safety rules.
While 2,000 of those facilities were said to have spilled the fracking fluid containing BTEX. Unfortunately, BTEX can pass through soil into the water underground, contaminating both water and the land (Chen et al.). Back to the chemical brine, about 98 percent is gotten rid of by companies by putting brine into brine holder or oil and gas formations that have already been depleted (Chen et al.). These formations are located deep below the earth’s surface. Some states such as Pennsylvania have already hit the maximum injection capacity and therefore need to transport the waste water to other states for treatment. This increases the possibility of spills (Chen et al.).
The last chemical that will be discussed that are in fracking fluid and show to have a negative effect on humans are EDCs (endocrine-disrupting chemicals). When it comes to the fracking process, over 750 chemicals are used to make the chemical fluid used (Kassotis et al. 2). Subjection to EDCs has been connected to the lowering of fertility, rise in incidence, damaged gonadal growth and many other health problems. Of the 750 chemicals over 100 are recognized or believed to be EDCs while the others are toxins and carcinogenic (Kassotis et al. 2).
If there is anything to take away from the research it is that fracking is horrible for the environment. It produces toxic waste water that gets into the ground water. Therefore, it can get into our water ways to Faust water as well as poison plants relying on water obtained though the soil. Also, fracking although dangerous lacks strong regulation and therefore, hydraulic fracturing companies can keep exposing the public to these toxic chemicals unless shamed into doing what is right.
Works Cited Page
- Aczel, Miriam R., and Karen E. Makuch. “Environmental Impact Assessments and Hydraulic Fracturing: Lessons from Two U.S. States.” Case Studies in the Environment, Feb. 2018, pp. 1-11., doi:10.1525/cse.2017.000638.
- Chen, Jiangang, et al. “Hydraulic Fracturing: Paving the Way for a Sustainable Future?” Wastewater and Shale Formation Development, 2015, pp. 235-257., doi:10.1201/b18648-16.
- Jasechko, Scott, and Debra Perrone. “Hydraulic Fracturing near Domestic Groundwater Wells.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 50, 31 Jan. 2017, pp. 13138-13143., doi:10.1073/pnas.1701682114.
- Kassotis, Christopher D., et al. “Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Surface and Ground Water in a Drilling-Dense Region.” Endocrinology, vol. 155, no. 3, Mar. 2014, pp. 897-907., doi:10.1210/en.2013-1697.
- Kondash, Andrew J., et al. “The Intensification of the Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Science Advances, vol. 4, no. 8, 15 Aug. 2018, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar5982.
- Kuwayama, Yusuke, et al. “Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, vol. 2, no. 1, 20 Mar. 2015, pp. 17-24., doi:10.1007/s40518-014-0023-4.
- Olmstead, S. M., et al. “Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 13, 8 Jan. 2013, pp. 4962-4967., doi:10.1073/pnas.1213871110.
- Osborn, S. G., et al. “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 37, 30 May 2011, doi:10.1073/panas.1109270108.
