Hydraulic Fracturing Research Paper
Hydraulic Fracturing
Part A: A Background on Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing, otherwise know as fracking, is a relatively new development in natural gas extraction industry. Even though natural gas extraction has been around for decades, the process of mining for natural gas in dense shale was not economically feasible until now. As defined by what-is-fracking.com, “Hydraulic fracturing is the process of drilling for natural gas and oil underneath the ground,” (1). In order to extract natural gas from the ground, fracking companies will inject “more than a million gallons of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure down and across into a horizontally drilled wells as far as 10,000 feet below the surface. The pressurized …show more content…
mixture causes the rock layer, or shale, to crack. These fissures are held open by the sand particles so that natural gas from the shale can glow up the well,” (2). [As seen on the image on below] Once the natural gas is extracted form the ground, it is then stored in storage tanks and eventually sent off to generate energy. The energy is generated through combustion of the natural gas, which spins turbines to produce electricity.
Image: http://frack.mixplex.com/fracking
Why as a country are we interested in ‘Fracking’? Hydraulic fracturing has been a very controversial topic as of late, getting a lot of attention from newspapers and blogs, but why is the public so interested in this topic? I believe this is due to the fact that there are so many potential benefits and dangers of this process. On one hand, there are a handful of potential economic, political, and environmental benefits from going forward with fracking, however, there are also a number of red flags, in terms of health and the environment, that have people questioning whether or not fracking is the right direction to be heading.
Pros: From an economic standpoint, a number of reasons exist on why hydraulic fracturing is an appealing industry. In 2011 alone, the United States produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells. With the average price of natural gas being approximately $4.24 per thousand cubic feet, that 's a value of about $36 billion (11). 36 billion dollars is a lot of money in one year in one year, especially since this industry was pretty non-existent even a decade ago. What’s even more appealing is the future potential to make money. America is currently ranked 6th worldwide in terms of which countries are sitting on the most natural gas; estimated to about 6.93 trillion cubic meters of proven gas reserves, (Business Insider). [See image to below for map of gas reserves in the USA] In calculating the amount of money that equates to in dollars, at current gas prices, the United States is currently sitting on over 1.03 trillion dollars of natural gas. With the natural debt ceiling continuing to rise in the United States, I can defiantly see why it would be hard to pass up on over 1 trillion dollars of potential money sitting below our feet.
Another appealing aspect to of Hydraulic fracturing is that it gives the United States an opportunity to attempt to move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal. As you may know, coal is a fossil fuel that comes from the decomposition of organic materials that undergoes intense pressure for millions of years. The coal is extracted from the ground through mining and has a wide variety of negative impacts to the environment. First off, in order to produce energy from coal, it must be burned. The process of burning coal emits a number of toxins: such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury compounds. The main problem with coal is the amount of carbon dioxide that is produced when it is burned. The average emission rate of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants in the United States is currently at about 2,249 lbs/mWh. This is of big concern to us because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and, as a country, there has been a lot of push being made to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. When looking at this in terms of fracking, natural gas only produces about half of the CO2 emissions as coal does, so there is a lot of appeal in terms of switching from coal to natural gas in order to reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted.
The third benefit of fracking that makes it very appealing, especially to the US, is the potential for energy independence. Fracking has the A large percentage of the United States’ energy sources are imported, due to the fact that Americans consume much more energy than we can produce. This is the case because, “According to current estimates, more than 81% of the world 's proven oil reserves are located in OPEC Member Countries, with the bulk of OPEC oil reserves in the Middle East, amounting to 66% of the OPEC total,” (12). America is not one of the OPEC member countries, since the United States only sits on about 2 % o2f the world’s oil reserves, but it consumes about 19 % of the world’s energy. This means that fossil fuels, like oil, need to be imported from other countries in order to meet out energy demands. With the recent advancements in fracking technologies, we now have the ability to begin extracting the 6.93 trillion cubic meters natural gas the United states sits on top of, which allows us to have more trade balance with other countries.
Cons: Although natural gas is cleaner to burn than coal, as well as having a number of potential economic benefits, there are not the only aspect to consider when deciding which one the better non-renewable energy source. There are a number of other impacts that natural gas and fracking have on our planet that must be considered when determining if it is a safe energy source to continue practicing. One very serious issue with fracking is the effect that it has on our drinking water sources. “Over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination have been reported in areas near fracking facilities,” (6). Most of the water contamination has to do with increased methane levels in the drinkable water near fracking sties. This past July, the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA discussed that the closer you are living to area’s of fracking, the greater the possibly that your water is contaminated with methane. This may be the first step in coming to a conclusion on whether or not fracking in the Marcellus shale is actually responsible for polluted drinking water. In a recent study done by Robert Jackson, a chemical engineer at Duke University, he “found methane in 115 of 141, residential drinking-water wells. The methane concentration in homes less than one mile from a fracking well was six times high than then concentrate in home further away,” (8). [The image to the left refers to the methane concentration levels relative to the distance to the nearest gas well] (8). Although methane is not technically considered to be a toxic gas for humans to inhale, it is a potent greenhouse gas and can contribute to the issue of climate change. This is not necessarily enough conclusive evidence to say that the contaminated water sources clean water sources have increased methane levels but, it is definitely something to keep any eye on.
Relating to the rise of methane levels in water sources near fracking sites is the problem of ‘leaky wells’.
The process of hydraulic fracturing involved hundreds and hundreds of other chemicals, with a handful of them being toxic to humans: including benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. Since leaky may be an issue due to the research that was done on methane contamination of water sources, there is also the possibility that the number of other chemicals in the fracking process have the potential to make it to our water sources as well. The reason that wells have the risk of leaking is due to the fact that fracking wells are made of cement and the pressure from fracking causes the cement linings of the well to crack. So, when the fracking fluid is pumped through the well, some of the fluid will leak through the pipes and not find it’s way back up to the earth’s surface. So much so, that the fracking process had to be exempt from the Safe Water Drinking Act in order for companies to begin drilling. When lawmakers first presented the exemption, it was stated that 30 % of the fracking fluid would remain underground once the fracking site has completed drilling. This is concerning because there are a number of toxic chemicals reaming underground, with the hope that the fracking fluid does not reach drinkable water sources or effect the ecology of the surrounding area of a …show more content…
well.
The last big issue, in regard to hydraulic fracturing causing potential environmental problem, is the problem of unsafe disposal of the fracking fluid discharge. “In Pennsylvania, the agency that regulates how much water can be taken from the Susquehanna River basin says the average amount of water used per will is 4.4 million gallons,” (9). Since the fracking companies are ‘supposedly’ retrieving 70 % of the fracking fluid, on average, the companies will need to properly treat and dispose approximately 3 million gallons of water. However, this is a very expensive process, so not all of the fracking companies following these rules. In a recent court ruling, “a southern California oil company has been fined $60,000 after being caught on camera illegally dumping a toxic discharge produced by hydraulic fracturing,” (10). Although it’s scary that fracking companies are illegally dumping toxic discharge, what may be even scarier is how the company, Kern County, was reprimanded. The $ 60,000 fine may be a lot of money to some, but this is a very insignificant amount of money for the Kern County. According to the Los Angeles Times, Kern County is one of the largest producers of oil in the world and ranks in about 1.58 billion dollars in profits per year, (9). So, the $ 60,000 dollars only accounts for about .003 % of the profits from last year. If this is how companies are chastised for potentially putting the individuals in the surrounding area at a health risk, then companies will continue to do this if they believe the chance of paying a small fine is worth the risk.
** For part B of this paper, I will be arguing against hydraulic.
**
Part B: Should natural gas replace coal? What does the science say? What role does climate change have in this debate? Natural Gas may appear to look like forward moving progress in the field of non-renewable energy, since it is a cleaner energy source to burn compared to coal, but that is not necessarily the case. Due to a number of potential environmental issues brought on by the fracking process, we might not want to jump to any conclusions on which one is the ‘cleaner’ energy source.
The main reason that Natural Gas is not necessarily a better energy source than coal is because there is very little data or science that supports the hydraulic fracturing as being a safe process. Since this is a relatively new technology, we are completely unaware of the true long-term negative impacts fracking has on the people and environment in the surrounding area. Since fracking has begun, researchers have observed that methane levels are very high in the surrounding areas of sites and there have been hundreds of complaints of human and animal health concerns, but this can not definitively be tracked back to fracking. The only thing we really know about fracking is that it is cleaner to burn than coal and it has the potential to create jobs, which has made people seem oblivious to the possible problems this industry can create. In order for fracking to be a truly forward step in the non-renewable energy
realm, more testing and research needs to be done to prove that this is actually a cleaner process than coal mining. If we do not know all the details, there is no way to come to the conclusion that this is a good transition away of coal.
From a scientific standpoint, the burning of coal produces twice as much CO2 as natural gas combustion, so it would appear that natural gas is a greener energy source than coal. However, due to the numerous reports of methane leaks at fracking sites, the increase in methane can create problems in regards to climate change. “Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, so those leaks could potentially wipe out the climate benefits of natural gas,” (7). Unfortunately, there is no data that accurately depicts all of the methane leaking into the atmosphere, since air quality numbers at all of the fracking sites is incredibly hard to gather, so there is no way to support the science for natural gas being worse for the environment than coal. This brings us back to this issue of uncertainty; we should look at natural gas as being a cleaner energy source than coal if we do not know this to actually be true. All scientists know for certain is the combustion is of natural gas is a cleaner process, but that is only one of the things to consider when deciding whether or not natural gas should replace coal. The last reason the switch from coal to natural gas may not be the right decision is because the focus of our research and development of new technologies in the energy field should be on renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources are the only sustainable energy solutions and to renewables needs to happen as soon as possible. The problem with natural gas is that it has the ability to drive energy costs much lower than they currently are, which may disincentive people to think the switch to renewable resources is crucial. Also, the companies and investors who are spending billions of dollars building a new industry will not want to move away from it as soon as it getting going. They will push for natural gas grow as much as possible if that is what will make them the most money. The money and resources that are being spent on building this industry should be spent on making renewable energy sources a more affordable industry. As discussed early, both coal and natural gas both have incredibly negative impacts on the environment, it being unclear which one is actually better for the environment, so is fracking really worth so much time and money? That question remains unclear, but something that is clear is that the focus of time and money should be on making the real solution, renewable energy sources, a more abundant energy source as soon as possible.
Work cited
1: "What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial?" BBC News. BBC, 27 June 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
2: "Donate." Top Stories RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
3: "Natural Gas." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
4: Langly, Dianne. "Oil and Gas Links." - Technology in Fracking. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.
5: "Home Guides." Home Guides. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
6:"Fracking Causes Health Impacts." New Yorkers Against Fracking. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013
7: Harris, Richard. "Natural Gas May Be Easier On Climate Than Coal, Despite Methane Leaks." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
8: Fishetti, Mark. "Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom: Scientific American." Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom: Scientific American. Scientific American, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
9: "How Much Water Does It Take to Frack a Well?" Pennsylvania RSS. NPR, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
10: "How Much Water Does It Take to Frack a Well?" Pennsylvania RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
11: "American Enterprise Institute." University of Texas: Environmental Defense Fund Shale Gas Study Unmasks Politics of Anti-fracking Activist Cornell Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.
12:http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/press_r oom/1QEN2012.pdf
Part A: A Background on Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing, otherwise know as fracking, is a relatively new development in natural gas extraction industry. Even though natural gas extraction has been around for decades, the process of mining for natural gas in dense shale was not economically feasible until now. As defined by what-is-fracking.com, “Hydraulic fracturing is the process of drilling for natural gas and oil underneath the ground,” (1). In order to extract natural gas from the ground, fracking companies will inject “more than a million gallons of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure down and across into a horizontally drilled wells as far as 10,000 feet below the surface. The pressurized …show more content…
mixture causes the rock layer, or shale, to crack. These fissures are held open by the sand particles so that natural gas from the shale can glow up the well,” (2). [As seen on the image on below] Once the natural gas is extracted form the ground, it is then stored in storage tanks and eventually sent off to generate energy. The energy is generated through combustion of the natural gas, which spins turbines to produce electricity.
Image: http://frack.mixplex.com/fracking
Why as a country are we interested in ‘Fracking’? Hydraulic fracturing has been a very controversial topic as of late, getting a lot of attention from newspapers and blogs, but why is the public so interested in this topic? I believe this is due to the fact that there are so many potential benefits and dangers of this process. On one hand, there are a handful of potential economic, political, and environmental benefits from going forward with fracking, however, there are also a number of red flags, in terms of health and the environment, that have people questioning whether or not fracking is the right direction to be heading.
Pros: From an economic standpoint, a number of reasons exist on why hydraulic fracturing is an appealing industry. In 2011 alone, the United States produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells. With the average price of natural gas being approximately $4.24 per thousand cubic feet, that 's a value of about $36 billion (11). 36 billion dollars is a lot of money in one year in one year, especially since this industry was pretty non-existent even a decade ago. What’s even more appealing is the future potential to make money. America is currently ranked 6th worldwide in terms of which countries are sitting on the most natural gas; estimated to about 6.93 trillion cubic meters of proven gas reserves, (Business Insider). [See image to below for map of gas reserves in the USA] In calculating the amount of money that equates to in dollars, at current gas prices, the United States is currently sitting on over 1.03 trillion dollars of natural gas. With the natural debt ceiling continuing to rise in the United States, I can defiantly see why it would be hard to pass up on over 1 trillion dollars of potential money sitting below our feet.
Another appealing aspect to of Hydraulic fracturing is that it gives the United States an opportunity to attempt to move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal. As you may know, coal is a fossil fuel that comes from the decomposition of organic materials that undergoes intense pressure for millions of years. The coal is extracted from the ground through mining and has a wide variety of negative impacts to the environment. First off, in order to produce energy from coal, it must be burned. The process of burning coal emits a number of toxins: such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury compounds. The main problem with coal is the amount of carbon dioxide that is produced when it is burned. The average emission rate of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants in the United States is currently at about 2,249 lbs/mWh. This is of big concern to us because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and, as a country, there has been a lot of push being made to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. When looking at this in terms of fracking, natural gas only produces about half of the CO2 emissions as coal does, so there is a lot of appeal in terms of switching from coal to natural gas in order to reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted.
The third benefit of fracking that makes it very appealing, especially to the US, is the potential for energy independence. Fracking has the A large percentage of the United States’ energy sources are imported, due to the fact that Americans consume much more energy than we can produce. This is the case because, “According to current estimates, more than 81% of the world 's proven oil reserves are located in OPEC Member Countries, with the bulk of OPEC oil reserves in the Middle East, amounting to 66% of the OPEC total,” (12). America is not one of the OPEC member countries, since the United States only sits on about 2 % o2f the world’s oil reserves, but it consumes about 19 % of the world’s energy. This means that fossil fuels, like oil, need to be imported from other countries in order to meet out energy demands. With the recent advancements in fracking technologies, we now have the ability to begin extracting the 6.93 trillion cubic meters natural gas the United states sits on top of, which allows us to have more trade balance with other countries.
Cons: Although natural gas is cleaner to burn than coal, as well as having a number of potential economic benefits, there are not the only aspect to consider when deciding which one the better non-renewable energy source. There are a number of other impacts that natural gas and fracking have on our planet that must be considered when determining if it is a safe energy source to continue practicing. One very serious issue with fracking is the effect that it has on our drinking water sources. “Over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination have been reported in areas near fracking facilities,” (6). Most of the water contamination has to do with increased methane levels in the drinkable water near fracking sties. This past July, the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA discussed that the closer you are living to area’s of fracking, the greater the possibly that your water is contaminated with methane. This may be the first step in coming to a conclusion on whether or not fracking in the Marcellus shale is actually responsible for polluted drinking water. In a recent study done by Robert Jackson, a chemical engineer at Duke University, he “found methane in 115 of 141, residential drinking-water wells. The methane concentration in homes less than one mile from a fracking well was six times high than then concentrate in home further away,” (8). [The image to the left refers to the methane concentration levels relative to the distance to the nearest gas well] (8). Although methane is not technically considered to be a toxic gas for humans to inhale, it is a potent greenhouse gas and can contribute to the issue of climate change. This is not necessarily enough conclusive evidence to say that the contaminated water sources clean water sources have increased methane levels but, it is definitely something to keep any eye on.
Relating to the rise of methane levels in water sources near fracking sites is the problem of ‘leaky wells’.
The process of hydraulic fracturing involved hundreds and hundreds of other chemicals, with a handful of them being toxic to humans: including benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. Since leaky may be an issue due to the research that was done on methane contamination of water sources, there is also the possibility that the number of other chemicals in the fracking process have the potential to make it to our water sources as well. The reason that wells have the risk of leaking is due to the fact that fracking wells are made of cement and the pressure from fracking causes the cement linings of the well to crack. So, when the fracking fluid is pumped through the well, some of the fluid will leak through the pipes and not find it’s way back up to the earth’s surface. So much so, that the fracking process had to be exempt from the Safe Water Drinking Act in order for companies to begin drilling. When lawmakers first presented the exemption, it was stated that 30 % of the fracking fluid would remain underground once the fracking site has completed drilling. This is concerning because there are a number of toxic chemicals reaming underground, with the hope that the fracking fluid does not reach drinkable water sources or effect the ecology of the surrounding area of a …show more content…
well.
The last big issue, in regard to hydraulic fracturing causing potential environmental problem, is the problem of unsafe disposal of the fracking fluid discharge. “In Pennsylvania, the agency that regulates how much water can be taken from the Susquehanna River basin says the average amount of water used per will is 4.4 million gallons,” (9). Since the fracking companies are ‘supposedly’ retrieving 70 % of the fracking fluid, on average, the companies will need to properly treat and dispose approximately 3 million gallons of water. However, this is a very expensive process, so not all of the fracking companies following these rules. In a recent court ruling, “a southern California oil company has been fined $60,000 after being caught on camera illegally dumping a toxic discharge produced by hydraulic fracturing,” (10). Although it’s scary that fracking companies are illegally dumping toxic discharge, what may be even scarier is how the company, Kern County, was reprimanded. The $ 60,000 fine may be a lot of money to some, but this is a very insignificant amount of money for the Kern County. According to the Los Angeles Times, Kern County is one of the largest producers of oil in the world and ranks in about 1.58 billion dollars in profits per year, (9). So, the $ 60,000 dollars only accounts for about .003 % of the profits from last year. If this is how companies are chastised for potentially putting the individuals in the surrounding area at a health risk, then companies will continue to do this if they believe the chance of paying a small fine is worth the risk.
** For part B of this paper, I will be arguing against hydraulic.
**
Part B: Should natural gas replace coal? What does the science say? What role does climate change have in this debate? Natural Gas may appear to look like forward moving progress in the field of non-renewable energy, since it is a cleaner energy source to burn compared to coal, but that is not necessarily the case. Due to a number of potential environmental issues brought on by the fracking process, we might not want to jump to any conclusions on which one is the ‘cleaner’ energy source.
The main reason that Natural Gas is not necessarily a better energy source than coal is because there is very little data or science that supports the hydraulic fracturing as being a safe process. Since this is a relatively new technology, we are completely unaware of the true long-term negative impacts fracking has on the people and environment in the surrounding area. Since fracking has begun, researchers have observed that methane levels are very high in the surrounding areas of sites and there have been hundreds of complaints of human and animal health concerns, but this can not definitively be tracked back to fracking. The only thing we really know about fracking is that it is cleaner to burn than coal and it has the potential to create jobs, which has made people seem oblivious to the possible problems this industry can create. In order for fracking to be a truly forward step in the non-renewable energy
realm, more testing and research needs to be done to prove that this is actually a cleaner process than coal mining. If we do not know all the details, there is no way to come to the conclusion that this is a good transition away of coal.
From a scientific standpoint, the burning of coal produces twice as much CO2 as natural gas combustion, so it would appear that natural gas is a greener energy source than coal. However, due to the numerous reports of methane leaks at fracking sites, the increase in methane can create problems in regards to climate change. “Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, so those leaks could potentially wipe out the climate benefits of natural gas,” (7). Unfortunately, there is no data that accurately depicts all of the methane leaking into the atmosphere, since air quality numbers at all of the fracking sites is incredibly hard to gather, so there is no way to support the science for natural gas being worse for the environment than coal. This brings us back to this issue of uncertainty; we should look at natural gas as being a cleaner energy source than coal if we do not know this to actually be true. All scientists know for certain is the combustion is of natural gas is a cleaner process, but that is only one of the things to consider when deciding whether or not natural gas should replace coal. The last reason the switch from coal to natural gas may not be the right decision is because the focus of our research and development of new technologies in the energy field should be on renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources are the only sustainable energy solutions and to renewables needs to happen as soon as possible. The problem with natural gas is that it has the ability to drive energy costs much lower than they currently are, which may disincentive people to think the switch to renewable resources is crucial. Also, the companies and investors who are spending billions of dollars building a new industry will not want to move away from it as soon as it getting going. They will push for natural gas grow as much as possible if that is what will make them the most money. The money and resources that are being spent on building this industry should be spent on making renewable energy sources a more affordable industry. As discussed early, both coal and natural gas both have incredibly negative impacts on the environment, it being unclear which one is actually better for the environment, so is fracking really worth so much time and money? That question remains unclear, but something that is clear is that the focus of time and money should be on making the real solution, renewable energy sources, a more abundant energy source as soon as possible.
Work cited
1: "What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial?" BBC News. BBC, 27 June 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
2: "Donate." Top Stories RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
3: "Natural Gas." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
4: Langly, Dianne. "Oil and Gas Links." - Technology in Fracking. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.
5: "Home Guides." Home Guides. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
6:"Fracking Causes Health Impacts." New Yorkers Against Fracking. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013
7: Harris, Richard. "Natural Gas May Be Easier On Climate Than Coal, Despite Methane Leaks." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
8: Fishetti, Mark. "Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom: Scientific American." Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom: Scientific American. Scientific American, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
9: "How Much Water Does It Take to Frack a Well?" Pennsylvania RSS. NPR, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
10: "How Much Water Does It Take to Frack a Well?" Pennsylvania RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
11: "American Enterprise Institute." University of Texas: Environmental Defense Fund Shale Gas Study Unmasks Politics of Anti-fracking Activist Cornell Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.
12:http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/press_r oom/1QEN2012.pdf