Alex McCarthy (Environmental Science), Brendan Kavanagh (Building Materials & Wood Technology), and Noah Hillbert (Natural Resource Conservation)

Introduction

Imagine if the water in your home stopped working one day. How many simple daily activities would you be unable to accomplish? How would you take a shower or wash the dishes? And how difficult would it be to get the water you need through another source? Residents in areas where hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has occurred are claiming they are facing a similar situation. Their water still works, but it is contaminated with high levels of methane gas and other chemicals (Amos, n.d.). This can cause the water to become cloudy, gain color and odor, and pose potential health hazards. The risk of water contamination, no matter how small, is not an issue to be taken lightly. Access to clean water is a resource taken for granted until it is gone. Now that this vital resource is in jeopardy, we must do everything we can to protect it. We must improve the process of hydraulic fracturing in order to minimize the risk of water contamination.

What is hydraulic fracturing and what does it involve? Jackson et al. (2011) define hydraulic fracturing as a process that “typically involves millions of gallons of fluid that are pumped into an oil or gas well at high pressure to create fractures in the rock formation that allow oil or gas to flow from the fractures to the wellbore” (p. 1). Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, for natural gas in shale rock formations is referred to as an “unconventional development”, along with tight gas, coalbed methane, and methane hydrates, because fracking is a more complex process than the early methods of simply drilling and pumping gas out of the ground (Arthur et al, 2008, p. 1). Typically, in shale gas developments the well is drilled vertically into the shale rock formation, then turned sideways and drilled horizontally through the shale. Once the shale is fractured it releases pockets of natural gas trapped in the rock (Arthur et al, 2008, p.1 ). These gas shale basins are located at varying depths from as close as 1,000 ft to 13,500 ft below the surface.

 

In February 2012, the Energy Institute at the University of Texas Austin released a study that natural gas proponents claim proves that hydraulic fracturing is a safe method for extracting natural gas and oil (Nearing, 2012). Executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York State, Brad Gill, stated, “Once again objective research has concluded that the technology used to free gas from shale deposits is not a threat to fresh water aquifers” (Nearing, 2012, Par. 1). Yet, in the same study the researchers state, “The greatest potential for impacts from a shale gas well appears to be from failure of the well integrity, with leakage into an aquifer of fluids that flow upward in the annulus between the casing and the borehole” (Groat et al, 2012, p. 19). Thus, the very study that hydraulic fracturing proponents are referencing suggests possible aquifer contamination due to fracking operations. The risk of contamination due to a failure of well integrity is unacceptable, and hydraulic fracturing should not be allowed to continue without safeguards to protect water supplies.

The Debate

The debate over shale gas fracturing is being waged between good Americans on opposing sides, both supporting what they believe is good for their country. Those in support of shale gas development want energy independence and an energy source that emits fewer air pollutants than coal or oil. Those opposing hydraulic fracturing want to secure America’s water resources and protect families from the potential dangerous consequences associated with hydraulic fracturing.

There are many claims that the hydraulic fracturing process can cause ruptures in the ground that can lead to chemical seepage into groundwater. The result is leaks of methane, benzene, 2-Butoxyethanol and many other chemicals into public water sources (Earthworks,n.d.). Methane is lethal at high doses, and poses a possible combustion risk. Earthworks, an environmental advocacy group, cites an Environmental Working Group study that links the chemical Benzene to fracking fluid in petroleum distillates that are used as gelling agents and friction reducers. The study further describes Benzene as “a known human carcinogen that is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion” (Earthworks, n.d., “Toxic Chemicals”). The American Cancer Society states that extended exposure to benzene causes “leukemia and cancer of other blood cells” (American cancer society, 2010, “Does benzene cause cancer?”). With many Americans dying each year from cancer, an industry on the cutting edge of energy production should not be contributing to this problem.

The chemical 2-Butoxyethanol is also linked to cancer. A specific case in Silt, Colorado, provides an example of the risk. Local resident Laura Amos discovered that the drilling company Encana had been lying to her about the use of 2-Butoxyethanol in the nearby fracking well, and about the serious health threat posed by high levels of Methane in her water. 2-Butoxyethanol is known to cause kidney damage and failure, liver cancer, and to raise the toxicity of the spleen and bones (mainly in the spinal column). The worst effect is that 2-Butoxyethanol is known to cause malignant and benign tumors in the adrenal gland. That was the unfortunate case that Mrs. Amos suffered. In response, the Amos’ were told to keep a window open to prevent the accumulation of methane gas, which could lead to an explosion in their home (Amos, n.d.). Stories like this have been observed in many towns across the Unites States.

Potential For Contamination

 

 

The potential risks and hazards associated with hydraulic fracturing can be separated into two distinct groups. The first are deterministic events that are planned for and certain to occur. An example of a deterministic event during hydraulic fracturing is the expected negative effect on aquifer production by removing large quantities of water for use as fracking fluid. The second, probabilistic events, cannot be predetermined, and whether or not they occur is uncertain (Rahm et al., 2012). Probabilistic events during hydraulic fracturing are the primary cause of groundwater contamination (Rahm et. Al, 2012). The failure of well integrity is an example of a probabilistic event. Although it is impossible to entirely eliminate the situations that allow for probabilistic events to occur, it is possible to minimize the severity and frequency of such events. In order to limit the health and environmental risks associated with water contamination, methods that provide greater oversight of drill sites, in addition to full disclosure, should be required when implementing hydraulic fracturing.

Preventing Contamination

As stated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has full power to regulate any underground injection, “defined as the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection” (Pontius, 2009, p. 24). If the fluid contains hazardous materials that could severely degrade water quality, then the EPA has even greater power to regulate injection. However, the inability of the USEPA to regulate fluid injection during fracking, even if those fluids are possibly detrimental to drinking water, is due to the fact that “the SDWA does not grant authority for USEPA to regulate oil and gas production” to any extent (Pontius, 2009, p. 26). In effect, this allows drilling companies to avoid full disclosure of the chemicals used during the high-pressure process. The Fracturing and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act seeks to make hydraulic fracturing a federally regulated industry by placing it under the SDWA Underground Injection Clause (Norton and Wyckoff, 2012). The act would call for companies to be readily prepared to present full disclosure of chemicals in the case of an environmental hazard or health emergency. This provides regulatory bodies with an important resource when handling probabilistic events that have already occurred.

Limiting the negative consequences of probabilistic events associated with hydraulic fracturing is also possible before the development of a drill site begins. The requirement of an environmental impact assessment prior to site construction would allow for a greater ability to manage a hazard in the event that one arises. Each drill site is geographically unique and will require different techniques when managed. As a result, the preliminary assessments of each drill site will differ in their “description of the activities associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development in general, the potential environmental impacts associated with those activities, and proposed measure and regulations that have been identified to mitigate those impacts” (Rahm et. Al, 2012). Although each assessment will be independent of one another, requiring drill companies to gather as much information as possible about their respective hydraulic fracturing sites produces a greater awareness of the possible costs associated with probabilistic hazards. In turn, companies would be more inclined to self-regulate and carry out certain techniques and methods that limit the probability of accidental events (Pontius, 2009).

Carrying out a mandatory environmental impact assessment also provides greater criteria for the overall management of a fracking site. The specificity of dealing with a unique geological location leads to a more in depth solution when attempting to mitigate the effects of a negative probabilistic event. In other words, the assessment would impart a drilling company with the appropriate criteria necessary to prevent a high impact event or, at the very least, drastically limit the consequences to the environment. The standards that result from the assessment allow a regulatory agency to determine where the greatest amount of oversight would be needed. Although regulation would be site specific, oversight would be possible from the beginning of development of the site to the treatment of fracking fluid. For example, an environmental impact assessment leads to the development of a contingency plan. In hydraulic fracturing, these plans are essential in minimizing the potential that contamination will occur when handling hazardous material.

“If a release does occur, the operator should be prepared via proper contingency and spill planning to quickly recover the chemicals. Spill-response planning includes training employees and subcontractors in the proper response techniques, having appropriate equipment on hand, such as absorbent materials and booms, and/ or having prearranged contracts with specialized spill-response contractors who can quickly and efficiently respond to larger losses with the required equipment.” (Swartz, 2011).

The ultimate goal is to draw these types of conclusions and appropriate requirements from a site-specific environmental impact assessment. By applying a mandatory impact assessment, regulatory agencies and drill companies can collaborate in utilizing the best practice methods that limit the high cost of the environmental and health issues associated with water contamination.

In conclusion, the environmental and health impacts associated with water contamination from fracking can be limited both after an event and before the process of fracking even occurs. By requiring full disclosure of fracking chemicals and establishing a required environmental impact assessment, both regulatory agencies and gas companies can determine the best ways to prevent health and environmental degradation. As a result, these requirements provide a greater method for managing a hydraulic fracturing site by holding the environment as the top priority.

 

References

American Cancer Society. (2010, November 5). Benzene. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/benzene

Amos, Laura. (n.d.). Earthworks. Retrieved from http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

Arthur, D. J., Bohm, B., & Layne, M. (2008). Hydraulic fracturing considerations for natural gas wells of the Marcellus shale. Transactions /, 59, 49-60. Retrieved at http://www.thefriendsvillegroup.com/HydraulicFracturingReport1.2008.pdf

Earthworks. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

Groat, C. G., Grimshaw, T. W. (2012). Fact-based regulation for environmental protection in shale gas development. The University of Texas at Austin: The Energy Institute. Retrieved at http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_regulation120215.pdf

Jackson, R.B., Pearson, B.R., Osborn, S.G., Warner, N.R., & Vengosh, A. (2011). Research and policy recommendations for hydraulic fracturing and shale?gas extraction. Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved at http://www.ela-iet.com/EMD/HydraulicFracturingWhitepaper2011.pdf

Manuel, J. (2010). EPA tackles fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(5), A199-A199. Retrieved at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=673ef2d4-6489-4e77-a11f-922ed086214c%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=107

Nearing, B. (2012). Study proclaims natural gas hydrofracking safe for groundwater. Timesunion.Com, Environmental and Energy Issues(The Green Blog), 4/3/2012. Retrieved at http://blog.timesunion.com/green/study-proclaims-natural-gas-hydrofracking-safe-for-groundwater/3716/

Norton, R. K., & Wyckoff, M. A. (2012). Lessons from Michigan’s perfect storm: term—limited legislature restores mining’s exemption from local zoning. Planning & Environmental Law, 64(1), 3-10. doi:10.1080/15480755.2012.646231

Pontius, F. (2009). Hydraulic fracturing: is regulation needed? Journal: American Water Works Association, 101(9), 24-32.

Rahm, B. G., & Riha, S. J. (2012). Toward strategic management of shale gas development: regional, collective impacts on water resources. Environmental Science & Policy, 17, 12-23. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.004

Swartz, T. (2011). Hydraulic fracturing: risks and risk management. Natural Resources & Environment, 26(2), 30-59. Retrieved at http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=mlin_w_umassamh&tabID=T002&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA271595075&&docId=GALE|A271595075&docType=GALE&role=