Fracking: A Controversial Source of Energy

What is fracking?
Fracking, short for “hydraulic fracturing,” was invented over seventy years ago.¹ It is a technique that extracts gas from conventional wells. Drillers use vertical well shafts to descend 10,000 feet down into the layer of shale deep in the ground, turn the drill 90 degrees, and then drill a series of horizontal wells over a thousand feet deeper into the shale. They then blast a mixture of two to four million gallons of water, chemicals and sand in order to fracture the rock and release natural gas.

A simple visualization of a fracking well
A simple visualization of how fracking works. Credit

In the states of Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, fracking is done in Marcellus shale.² Natural gas wells have been drilled in Marcellus shale for over fifty years, but recent advancements in deep horizontal drilling and fracking have greatly increased the profitability of extracting gas from this shale.

The mixture of water, chemicals and sand that is used in fracking is referred to as “fracking fluid.” Exclusively in the state of Pennsylvania in the year of 2011, about 12 to 20 million gallons of water were use every single day in fracking fluid. About 1,500 horizontal fracking wells used approximately .5% to .8% of the water Pennsylvania used daily.²

The large amount of water that fracking requires is taken from multiple different sources. Fracking in the Marcellus shale uses 72% of its water from water sources in Pennsylvania, such as rivers, groundwater, lakes, and creeks. The remaining water is acquired from drilling companies, abandoned mines, underground pipelines, and rainwater on the well pad. In addition to this water, 1% of fracking fluid is composed of 50 known chemicals. These chemicals are used to prevent microorganism growth and the corrosion of metal pipes, and to maintain fluid viscosity (a fluid’s resistance to flow).³ The sand that is in fracking fluid is used to reduce friction, which allows the fluid to be pumped faster and at a lower pressure.


 

What are some of the effects of fracking?
The invention and increase in popularity of fracking has greatly affected the oil industry. In the month of October in 2013, for the first time in over 50 years the United States produced more oil than it imported.¹ The costs of heating and electricity have gone down due to the decreased amount of coal consumption. The economy of the United States has also shown benefits because of the increased activity in the gas and oil sector. Barnett Shale, the form of shale found deep in the ground in the state of Texas, is the largest producible reserve of onshore natural gas in our country due to fracking.

Because of  fracking, there is enough domestic gas in the United States to meet our country’s needs for the foreseeable future. The estimated recoverable gas from US shale source rocks using fracking is about 42 trillion cubic meters, which is nearly equal to the total conventional gas discovered in the United States over the past 150 years, and is equivalent to about 65 times the current US annual consumption (according the the IHS, a business-information company in Colorado). The growth in activity of the American gas industry has greatly benefitted our economy. The gas industry accounts for nearly 3 million jobs and 385 billion dollars in direct economic activity.⁴ Stable supplies of gas from fracking depend on a steady rate of new well completions,  and the resulting gains in employment and economic stimulation from new wells attribute to the benefits of fracking.

Data released from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) over the years of 2005 to 2015 reveals that the consumption of coal has decreased from 1.93733 quadrillion Btu (September 2005) to 1.457655 quadrillion Btu (September 2014), while the average consumption of natural gas has increased from 1.456699 quadrillion Btu to 1.880758 quadrillion Btu (September 2015).¹¹ Although this reveals the positive trend that Americans are consuming less coal, the fact that natural gas consumption has grown may not have a positive effect on our environment. I will explain some of the underlying dangers of increased natural gas production and consumption later in this blog.

The brown line represents natural gas consumption and the blue line represents coal consumption. Credit

Here is the calculation of Btu of coal consumption and natural gas consumption per person in the United States for the years 2005 and 2014:

2005 U.S. Population: 295,500,000 (Google)

2014 U.S. Population: 318,900,000 (Google)

Coal Consumption:

2005 – 1,937,330,000,000,000 Btu/295,500,000 people = 6,556,108.291 Btu/person

2014 – 1,457,655,000,000,000 Btu/318,900,000 people = 4,570,884.29 Btu/person

Natural Gas Consumption:

2005 – 1,456,699,000,000,000 Btu/295,500,000 people = 4,929,607.445 Btu/person

2014 – 1,880,758,000,000,000 Btu/318,900,000 people = 8,591,859.296 Btu/person

As displayed by this data, fracking has effected the way that the United States has consumed natural gas. This in turn has effected the financial matters of the natural gas consumers in our country. From 2007 to 2013 (a time in which the fracking industry experienced an expansion), consumer gas bills decreased by 13 million dollars per year. Per gas consuming household, the decrease was about 200 dollars per year.¹⁰ While many defenders of fracking attribute this positive change completely to fracking, many factors must be considered when it comes to the natural gas industry in our national and global economy. Here is an informational video in which some of the economic benefits of fracking are explained:

However, these benefits come at a deep cost to our environment and those living near fracking wells. Over 15 million people in America live within one mile of an oil or gas well. Some homeowners living near these wells have experienced pollution of their drinking water due to fracking chemicals released from leaking gas wells and disposal ponds, and methane leaks have caused flames to shoot out of some people’s kitchen taps.¹ Leaking well heads can cause severe water contamination when flowback fluid (which contains natural salts, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and radioactive materials from the shale) leak into streams or sink into groundwater. Within the first two weeks of fracking, nearly one fifth of the entire amount of fracking fluid used flows to the surface of the well.⁴ Considering the massive amounts of fracking fluid that are used, as discussed earlier, this is a substantial amount of potentially destructive fluid. The river shown below contains radium levels 200 times greater in the area where fracking fluid was disposed (even after being processed by a treatment plant) compared to other areas of the river.⁸

 

A river in Pennsylvania that has high levels of radioactivity due to fracking flowback. Credit

 

In addition, air quality has been effected by diesel fumes from the truck convoys traveling down rural roads to well pads.¹ There has been a growing awareness of these dangers and the denial of the gas and oil industry has lead to an even greater public outcry. In 2013, a documentary on HBO titled Gasland Part II aired with hopes of “exposing power politics of fracking.” The trailer of this documentary can be viewed below:


One aspect of the fracking controversy is that some people believe fracking has been a cause of a spur of man-made earthquakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. However, there is little evidence that fracking actually causes earthquakes.⁵ While some seismic activity is triggered by fracking in wells, the U.S. Geological Survey has stated that none of the recent man-made earth quakes are directly related to fracking. Bill Elsworth, a USGS seismologist, claims “We don’t find any evidence that fracking is related to any of these magnitude 3 earthquakes that we have been studying.”

A perceived benefit of hydraulic fracturing is a decreased dependence on coal. Although fracking reduces coal consumption, evidence has shown that there hasn’t been a change in greenhouse gas emissions. This is because researchers have discovered a recent increase in the release of methane gas. Methane is released from the natural gas wells which are used in fracking and is far more potent than the carbon dioxide that is released when coal is burned. It is estimated that “3.6–7.9% of the lifetime production of a shale gas well (compared with 1.7–6% for conventional gas wells) is vented or leaked into the atmosphere from the well head, pipelines and storage facilities.”⁴ Therefore, although a decrease in coal consumption curtails the emission of carbon dioxide, the release of methane gas still contributes to the climate change of our planet.

A breakdown of the climate footprint and the growing impact of methane due to shale drilling
A breakdown of the climate footprint and the growing impact of methane due to shale drilling. Credit
A visualization of the dangerous trapping ability of methane gas
A visualization of the dangerous trapping ability of methane gas. Credit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While some methane gas is emitted from natural sources, around sixty percent of total methane emissions are from human activities, such as industry, agriculture, and waste management activities, as displayed in the chart below:

U.S. Methane Emissions by Source. (2013)  Credit

As of 2013, the amount of methane gas released from natural gas and petroleum systems, which includes fracking, was nearly three times the amount that was released from coal mining, and slightly less than twice the amount released from landfills.⁹ As the popularity of fracking has continued to expand in recent years, the amount of methane released from fracking (in the overall natural gas and petroleum systems category) is due to be even larger than depicted in the above pie chart.


 

What is the future of fracking?                                                            Fracking provides our nation with the valuable ability to decrease our dependence on other countries for natural gas. It has contributed to the growth of our economy and a decreased dependence on coal as an energy source. Mark Soback, geophysicst at Stanford University, claims “Fracking comes with promise and with risk . . . it’s clear that it’s a remarkable resource. It’s abundant, and as a transition fuel between today and the green-energy future, natural gas really is the answer.”  Zoback and a team of scientists surveyed the existing data about fracking and concluded that despite the threats that fracking imposes on our environment and the quality of life of American citizens, strictly enforced regulations can help minimize these threats. Regulations could include reducing the amount of toxic chemicals in fracking fluid and closely monitoring the integrity of the well throughout  it’s creation and continued use.⁶ For more information regarding the impending federal regulations for fracking that the Obama administration is currently working on, click here.

Between the years of 2004 and 2011, the United States experienced a 75 percent increase in it’s natural gas reserves because of fracking.⁷ Due to the extreme short-term benefits of fracking that have changed the way our country acquires and consumes natural gas, it is doubtful that the continued development of fracking will be halted any time soon. However, the expansion of fracking in other nations has been a heavily debated topic. In the United Kingdom, a company titled Caudrilla was granted planning permission to begin drilling in Balcombe, West Sussex in early 2013. High amounts of public opposition eventually deterred the company’s progress and they stopped drilling in the area. Although commercial fracking is not yet occurring in the United Kingdom, it is known that there will be an increasing presence of drilling rigs in it’s rural landscapes.⁷  The debate on the expansion of fracking, not only in the UK, but also in the United States and other countries, is one that must take into consideration the opinions of those living near the drills themselves, the effect that it has on the world economy, the impact on climate change due to an increase in methane gas, and the many other important factors that fracking entails regarding the human race and the environment that we live in.

A young member of the anti-fracking protests in Balcombe. Credit

 

 


Sources used:

1: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/14/fracking-hell-live-next-shale-gas-well-texas-us 

2. http://exploreshale.org/#

3. http://physics.info/viscosity/

4. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/477271a.html#ref2

5. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/18/us-earthquakes-fracking-gas

6. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/scin.5591820519/full 

7. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-9066.12032/full 

8. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/02/fracking-radioactive-water-pennsylvania/2904829/ 

9. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

10. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/economic-benefits-of-fracking

11. http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T01.03#/?f=M&start=200509&end=201506&charted=1-2-3-5-12

 


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “Fracking: A Controversial Source of Energy”

  1. Maddie Nicol Avatar
    Maddie Nicol

    You briefly mentioned regulations on fracking, but are there any laws in place that limit it? Maybe you could go into description about legislation that is in place or that is in progress (if any) that are aimed at stopping, or putting limitations on fracking in order to protect US citizens or the environment.

  2. deepaki Avatar
    deepaki

    Good post, it is informative and covers various aspects well. Here are a few suggestions:

    1. It’ll help to footnote (or link) sources for the various claims. In general, anything that is presented as fact should come with a trustworthy source.
    2. It is also important that you yourself analyze these claims. Ask questions about the claims, if there might be factors that are being ignored. Try to find more information to address these questions.
    3. In general, it’ll be very useful to have more detail, quantitative perspectives on the claims. Make comparisons, provide examples, put numbers in perspective for the reader.
    4. For instance, with greenhouse emissions you can compare it with other things. How does it for example compare with methane emissions from landfills, or dairy farms? Try to establish the big picture.

Leave a Reply