A Case Against Hydrofracking
The following is adapted from an essay I wrote a few years ago as part of my graduate program at Avila University.
Several years ago I attended a church retreat in New Jersey. Some of us were talking in a group one day, and someone I did not know spoke up to say (in the context of the conversation) that his parents had leased out their farm for fracking. We looked at each other uncomfortably, and someone commented "that's not great." As for me, I said, "that's not going to do the groundwater any favors." Within seconds that man was stepping up to me, in an alpha male sort of way, and said something about fracking being perfectly safe. My reply was something along the lines of "not my problem," and I backed away.
What Is Fracking?
"Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well. The process can be carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer, which can create new pathways to release gas or used to extend existing channels. The term fracking refers to how the rock is fractured apart by the high-pressure mixture." (Shukman, 2018)
No part of that looked good to me, in environmental terms. When I was very young my father hired some men to drill a well on our farm in northeast Missouri. They tried for a week before finally striking an underground stream at 400 ft on one corner of the farm. It was "hard water," high in iron especially, but potable and perfectly safe for the livestock. I know the value of water on a farm, and I can't understand farmers being willing to risk losing such a resource.
The Risks, Laid Out Plainly
The risks and concerns around fracking are as follows:
- Contamination of groundwater
- Methane pollution and its impact on climate change
- Air pollution impacts
- Exposure to toxic chemicals
- Blowouts due to gas explosion
- Waste disposal
- Large volume water use in water-deficient regions
- Fracking-induced earthquakes
- Workplace safety
- Infrastructure degradation
(Hoffman)
In my research, I've reviewed the pros and cons regarding fracking, and was mildly surprised to find that the case for the value of fracking seems rather weak. For every "pro" there was a "con" that completely negated it. Consider the following example.
"The abundance of gas has set off ripples throughout the US economy, with numerous additional impacts. As power companies substitute gas for coal in their generators, for instance, consumers benefit from lower prices. This switch has led to another important boon: a significant reduction in CO2 emissions." (Prud'Homme, 2015)
That sounds pretty good, right? Gas is definitely better than coal both in terms of cost and also emissions. If only it were really that simple.
The Air We're Not Talking About
One of the main chemicals released in the fracking process is methane, and it is estimated that 4% of it escapes into the atmosphere during extraction. Because methane is 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat, the release of this gas is detrimental to the air quality of surrounding fracking sites. Additionally, the ancillary components of fracking directly increase air pollution at well sites. These include the pollutants released from new construction and subsequent operation of fracking locations, the increased emissions from transporting oil and gas from the site, and emissions from waste disposal and storage. Pollutants increase the production and long-term lingering of smog, which decreases the availability of clean air for workers and local residents. (Horton, 2019)
While renewable energy, such as solar and wind, would require some initial construction and then ongoing maintenance, generating air pollution, overall the environmental impact is minimal when compared to fracking. So, while fracking might be somewhat better than coal mining and consumption, renewable energy options beat both.
Water In, Poison Out
Millions of gallons of water are used in the fracking process, which directly reduces the amount of clean water available to surrounding residents. When water is not available to fracking sites locally, it may be transported from other regions, ultimately drawing down available water from lakes and rivers across the country. Water contamination could also reduce the overall water supply of regional fracking areas, as the chemicals that are used in the process have the propensity to leak back into local water supplies.
Waste water is also an issue at fracking sites. Between 20% and 40% of the water used for fracking that is returned to the ground surface consists of toxic contaminants. The presence of wastewater has harmful ramifications for the environment, as it cannot be easily treated and returned to a usable state — for purposes other than fracking, that is. (Horton, 2019)
There you have it. Chemicals used in fracking tend to leak into local water sources. If those water resources are above ground, they are potentially harming wildlife, livestock, and humans. One of the United Nations' 17 sustainable development goals is to "ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all." Obtaining clean water is a problem we in the United States usually associate with developing countries, but here in our own back yard companies are being allowed to work against public safety and sanitation in search of profits for shareholders.
There's something that seems pathetic to me with fracking. So greedy are we for more oil and gas to fuel our civilization, rather than making the conversion to renewable energy and more sustainable practices, we're willing to blast the very stones beneath our feet for just a bit more. Like someone who won't buy a smartphone because their Commodore 64 from 1982 is all they've ever needed... except that using an old computer doesn't contaminate air or groundwater.
The Part That Should Worry Us Most
Worse than anything could be the unintended consequences of fracking.
We are only just beginning to understand what we are doing to our local geologies, and this is dangerous. A 2014 Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources paper notes:
"Between 1967 and 2000, geologists observed a steady background rate of 21 earthquakes of 3.0 Mw or greater in the central United States per year. Starting in 2001, when shale gas and other unconventional energy sources began to grow, the rate rose steadily to approximately 100 such earthquakes annually, with 188 in 2011 alone." (Wihbey, 2015)
New research on seismology in places such as Texas and Oklahoma suggests risky and unknown changes. It is just not smart policy to go headlong first — at massive scale — and only later discover the consequences.
It is so much human nature to rush headlong with an activity before fully evaluating the advantages and risks. We're like teenagers who overestimate the reward of some delinquent act and are then left mad and confused when disaster results. Our planet is geologically active, and periodically an eruption or earthquake reminds us of that fact. Do we really want to be playing with forces we don't yet fully understand?
Where I Land
Hydrofracking should not be permitted. It is a hazard to the environment, including not just aquifers and waterways, but the earth itself. Causing long-term harm to our neighbors in return for short-term gain doesn't seem very ethical to me.
Sources
- Hoffman, J. Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana.
- Wihbey, J. (2015). Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Key Issues. Yale Climate Connections.
- Prud'Homme, A. (2015). The Cases For and Against Hydrofracking. OUPblog.
- Horton, M. (2019). What Are the Effects of Fracking on the Environment? Investopedia.
- Shukman, D. (2018). What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial? BBC News.
