Should fracking be further implemented?

The controversy regarding fracking has picked up in recent years, especially in the United States. Often a topic in environmental and even political debates, fracking has received mixed opinions.

So what exactly is fracking? Fracking or hydraulic fracking is the process of drilling a well into the earth to extract natural gas. Once a large enough well is created, oil companies often shoot a chemical mixture that includes water, sand, and other materials down to the shale (or rock). This is carried out at high pressure and drilling can take place both vertically and horizontally. At the end, this results in the gas being pushed back up through the well and above the surface, where it can be extracted.

A general illustration of what occurs during fracking.

Fracking has been most notably revived in the Permian region in Texas. In recent years, it has been considered a gold mine for oil. As a result, oil companies have turned  their attention to drilling in the Permian and have their fracking efforts rewarded in the form of large amounts of revenue. For example, Apache Corp has taken advantage of the Permian basin (which spans 59 Texas counties) by digging more than fifty horizontal wells. There have even found a way to reduce the cost of treating the water that flows back from fracking – a measly cost of $0.29 per barrel compared to $2.50 per barrel if another third party were to intervene. However, the practice of fracking has caused millions of gallons of water to be used. A typical fracking has the ability to use 5 millions gallons of water. This is an astronomical amount, especially when one realizes that this is equivalent to watering a golf course for about three and a half weeks.

The Permian Basin Region extends over a large amount of Western Texas.
Apache found oil (or should I say, gold!) in the Permian Basin.

This brings up the question: How harmful is fracking for the environment and people in general? Besides the excessive amount of water that is used in fracking, it was also found by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that hydraulic fracking can contaminate drinking water. Due to the increase methane release from this process, some citizens have reported foul tap water – water that was bubbly or flammable. Also, it is uncertain what exactly is being shot down into the Earth by these companies. In fact, about one in five of the chemicals in the fracking fluid is unknown. Although, there are government regulations that have been put into place, it is quite certain that many companies violate these standards.

Furthermore, Cornell University researchers have stated that the methane leaking from fracking has led to basically no environmental benefits (compared to drilling for coal, for example). With fracking becoming more prevalent companies can also afford to lower gas prices. This in a sense, discourages the user of cleaner forms of energy, such as solar and wind. By observing significant melting from glaciers, it is evident that climate change is occurring right before our eyes. Fracking would just add to this climate change occurring within the Earth – a significant problem in the years and decades to come.

The environmental concerns of fracking have been well documented in recent years. Although it may seem that fracking is detrimental to our environment, more research is being conducted in this area. Last semester, I became more involved in a research lab that investigated the harm of fracking practices. There is a current struggle between scientists, the government, and oil companies when it comes to fracking. Although scientists want to unearth definitive consequences that come with fracking, oil companies and the government are preventing this from happening. The government does not provide enough funding for these projects and oil companies, for obvious reasons, do not want their source of revenue to be taken away from them. Conducting research in the field of environmental chemistry was interesting because it showed me just how much politics can play in the role of science. Besides doing extensive scientific research, there are other hoops to go through in order to change the system that is currently in place.

So are there any positives to fracking, if any?

Although there are negative environmental repercussions to fracking, there are some positives. Due to the increased reliance of fracking, the amount of coal being burned has decreased. The percent of U.S. electricity generation from coal in 2008 was 50 %. Four years later, this figured decreased by 13 %. Coal burning has led to early deaths in many people so reducing its usage would have a positive effect. Also, there have been significant reductions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide since coal has been used to a lesser extent.

Natural gas production has increased with the help of fracking.

Furthermore, the amount of water that is used in fracking is not as bad compared to coal, nuclear, and traditional oil extraction, which can used up to 10 times as much water as fracking per energy unit. Fracking isn’t permanent either. Drilling doesn’t occur forever and the techniques for fracking have been improving in recent years. The efficiency of this process is getting better, which means less water usage and less time needed to extract the oil from the shale.

Overall, fracking is a very complicated issue that is very prevalent in today’s world. We are able to get cheaper gas and the U.S. has become less reliant on foreign nations with the excess amounts of oil discovered in the Permian region. What are your thoughts about fracking? Should the U.S. value revenue over the environment (Oil is an extremely huge business in the U.S.)?

 

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-without-freshwater-at-a-texas-oilfield/

Pros and cons of fracking: 5 key issues

 

One thought on “Should fracking be further implemented?

  1. There was a fairly substantial debate in Central Pennsylvania a few years ago, when companies began fracking the Marcellus Shale. The resounding community-wide conclusion seemed to be that we didn’t want to see fracking anywhere near us. Considering the breadth of environmental impact studies we conduct before we do anything, I really don’t understand how we allow so much fracking considering what we don’t know about it. As you said, a fifth of the chemicals in fracking fluid are unknown. Earthquakes in Oklahoma have increased massively since companies began to frack there, and last I checked, scientists/the government/fracking companies cannot explain why. To answer your question at the end, while I do see the benefits, I cannot support fracking until we know more about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *