Hydraulic Fracturing in the Media

Hydraulic fracturing, in more recent years, has attracted much attention in the public media. The widely received documentary, "Gasland," directed, filmed, and narrated by Josh Fox, portrayed hydraulic fracturing in a negative light. It showed sensational images, such as a man located near a drilling sight setting fire to the water coming from his tap, to highlight the downfalls of the natural gas drilling procedure. The trailer for the movie is displayed below. Take a look if you'd like.

In response, "Truthland," tells the story of Shelly, a Pennsylvania mother on a quest for answers on the hydraulic fracturing process. The camera follows her as she travels across the United States in search of honest answers that no one is being paid to answer. The trailer for the movie is displayed below.

A Middle Ground: "Green Completion"

The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States is attempting to create what I like to call a "middle ground" in order to keep the environment and human health in mind but also to keep the industry of hydraulic fracturing alive. By taking the facts from both sides of the argument about over a year ago, on April 17, 2012, the EPA passed regulations to reduce dangerous air pollution that occurs as a result of the oil and natural gas industry. This marked the first ever federal air standards for natural gas wells that undergo hydraulic fracturing. These regulations set up for the fractured wells are based on proven technology and practices that those in the industry have successfully used and continue to currently. About 50% of fractured natural gas wells in the United States are using these methods today. 

The EPA held two public meetings during the development of these regulations. Receiving more than 156,000 comments, the final product provides flexibility for the industry while keeping in mind the voice of the public. The rules allow for the industry to meet their designated deadlines while simultaneously keeping up with their part related to environmental benefits. The final regulations offer incentives for the industry to advance their technology and reduce pollution at the earliest stages. "Green completion", a tested and proved process that captures natural gas that escapes into the air, is a key player in the final regulations. With green completion there is an expected 95% yearly reduction in VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds aka the pollutants) emitted that would be coming from about 11,000 new fracturing wells. This reduction is also expected to reduce ground-level ozone in oil and gas production areas as well as reducing methane emissions from new and updated wells.

"Green Completion" equipment (courtesy of motherjones.com)

The process includes special equipment which works to separate gas and liquid hydrocarbons from the previously mentioned "flowback", or other fluid that leaks out onto the surface, that comes from the well. This way the gas and hydrocarbons can be treated and sold without wasting precious natural resources. Green completion systems present a significant opportunity for cost savings. By using portable equipment to process and separate the gas, the recovered gas can be sent directly to another pipeline and sold from there. These systems can typically recover more than half of the total gas produced. When the final rules become implemented in 2015, EPA studies show that the costs saved will be anywhere between 11 to 19 million dollars. 

As of lately, some states and cities, including Colorado, Wyoming, Fort Worth and Southlake Texas, are requiring green completion systems. Working alongside the government to ensure safe practices, those taking part of green completion systems are at the forefront of ensuring environmentally friendly business and have set a standard for the industry.
 

Frack off...Exploring the Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing

In this installment, I will provide common arguments opponents of hydraulic fracturing offer against the natural gas process and again, offer the facts behind them. I once again do not intend to offer information in a biased manner and will do my best to present the material strictly factually. 

Argument: Hydraulic fracturing uses too much water.

Fact: After conducting some research, I found the pie graph below, provided by the joint collaboration of the United States Department of Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey; estimates are current as of 2005, as no new estimates have been released. According to their estimates, mining, oil and gas account for only 1% of the nations water consumption, a relatively small percentage of the overall usage. Additionally, I stumbled across FracFocus whose “primary purpose is to provide factual information concerning hydraulic fracturing and groundwater protection.  It is not intended to argue either for or against the use of hydraulic fracturing as a technology” (http://fracfocus.org/). They state that oil and gas operates are advocating capturing water when the river flow is greatest according to the seasons.

Argument: Hydraulic fracturing contaminates drinking water. 

Fact: The Environmental Protection Agency, as of April 2011, released its intent of research under the Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. As of September 2012, the EPA has only released its methods of research that includes: analysis of existing data, scenario evaluations, laboratory studies, toxicity assessments, and case studies. Though no results have been reported to the public, the goal of their research is to “to inform the public and provide decision-makers at all levels with high-quality scientific knowledge that can be used in decision-making processes” regarding hydraulic fracturing. Results from this study, which will be available for peer review and comment in 2014, will hopefully offer greater insight into the implications hydraulic fracturing has on drinking water. Just as a side note, in 2004, the EPA released a report with similar aims, to determine if hydraulic fracturing contaminated drinking water, it found no relationship between the two and declared fracking as safe. However, according to OMB, referenced in earlier posts, this report remains controversial as the official on the report suggested it was flawed.

 

Argument: Hydraulic fracturing causes earthquakes.

On this issue, I found mixed results. According to the United States Geological Survey, hydraulic fracturing has the potential to "causes small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern.” However, the Environmental Protection Agency reported differently that, they have consistently found no relationship between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes. 

Argument: Hydraulic fracturing and its disclosure laws and trade secrets leave something to be desired. What’s the deal?

Fact: Hydraulic fracturing is federally exempt from the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which allows for trade secrets, or lack of complete disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking fluid. This has lead to public distrust regarding the chemicals utilized in the hydraulic fracturing process. However, the FRAC Act, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, was introduced to congress in 2009 and reintroduced in March of 2011 and aims to remove this exemption and require full public disclosure of all chemical additives used in the hydraulic fracturing process. However, the bill has not been passed. On the state level, upwards of 100 bills have been introduced also pushing for public disclosure regarding chemical additives. 

About the Fracking fluid itself...

According to FracFocus, ‘fracking fluid’ is typically comprised of 98%-99.2% water and three to twelve chemical additives, utilized for a specific purpose (see graphic below). Specific utilizations of chemicals are “biocides to prevent microorganism growth and to reduce biofouling of the fractures; oxygen scavengers and other stabilizers to prevent corrosion of metal pipes; and acids that are used to remove drilling mud damage within the near‐wellbore area” (http://fracfocus.org/water-protection/drilling-usage). 

For more, click on the link to check out health effects of the known chemicals used in fracking fluid and their use in other products, such as laxatives, electronics, soaps, textiles, and much more. http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail/graphic

Frack on! Exploring the Pros of Hydraulic Fracturing

Here, I will provide the arguments that proponents of hydraulic fracturing commonly cite, and the facts behind them. I intend to provide the material in support of fracking as straight forward as possible. 

Argument: Hydraulic fracturing is better for the environment because it produces less greenhouse gas.

Fact: In fact, the combustion of natural gas does emit almost 30% less Carbon Dioxide than oil and just under 45% less Carbon Dioxide than coal. This chart of fossil fuel emissions levels, provided by the United States Energy Information Administration, is current as 2011. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Dioxide comprises 84% of greenhouse gasses, which contribute to climate change, and therefore this decrease in emissions by natural gas could be beneficial for our rapidly changing climate. 

However, there is one caveat. Though it clear that natural gas emits less Carbon Dioxide, there is some discrepancy regarding the hydraulic fracturing’s emission of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be “twenty times as effective as Carbon Dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.” Additionally, Michael Mann, a climate scientist that directs the Earth System Science Center said, “We may be reducing our CO2 emissions, but it is possible that we’re actually increasing the greenhouse gas problem with methane emissions.” (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/a-20-year-low-in-u-s-carbon-emissions/) After conducting some research in search of facts to support or disprove this claim, I found the following graph: 

  ***Enteric fermentation is the digestive process by which carbohydrates are broken down by microorganisms into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream of an animal***

This graph, provided by the Fifth National Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, proves that maybe Mann is on to something. After further investigation, I found that the Environmental Protection Agency reported, “increases in emissions of methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)” in areas with natural gas development. However, the EPA also discusses their in-depth plan to reduce these pollutants, which includes amendments to regulations, the STAR program, and green completion, all of which will be thoroughly reviewed in a coming blog post. 

Fact: In 2012, the United States increased its use of natural gas to 32% of the nations energy source, and Carbon emissions have dropped to their lowest levels in 20 years, a 14% decrease since their peak. 

 

The United States Energy Administration accredits this decline in Carbon Dioxide emission to the price competition of coal and natural gas, of which natural gas is cheaper and therefore led to reduced use of coal. It is also accredited to a mild winter, as energy for heating was needed less than in previous years. You can check out the whole report here: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10691

Argument: Fracking is good for the nations economy, as it will create jobs and drastically decrease foreign oil dependency. 

Fact: According to ISH Global Insight, a leader in economic forecasts and industry analysis, reports that with hydraulic fracturing there will be an estimated economic benefit of $1,000 per household in the United States. Additionally, their analysts estimate projected growth of 870,000 jobs in 2015 and 1.6 million by 2035. Regarding economic contribution, ISH Global Insight reports that $76 billion was generated from the hydraulic fracturing process in 2010 alone and that by 2015 an estimated $118 billion will be generated annually. They also estimate that by 2035 the fracking industry will be $231 billion. Also, according to the American Petroleum Institute hydraulic fracturing will decrease dependency on foreign oil, as sites are located here in the United States, as seen in the figure below provided by the OMB, a nonprofit agency interested in the common good and environmental concerns. 

So, what exactly is this whole fracking thing?

Like many of you, I had heard the term hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", several times before I actually knew it's meaning. This process, which has sparked much media popularity in recent years, involves drilling thousands of feet below the earth's surface and pumping millions of gallons of a blended mix of water, sand or other proppant, and chemical additives at extreme pressures into a well causing fissures, or cracks, in rock formations. These fissures, held open by the sand or other proppant, allow for the flow of oil and natural gas hence, an increase in production. Along with the natural gas that flows out, the internal pressure of the rock formation causes other fluids to return to the surface as well. "Flowback", the term used to refer to this fluid, contains the injected chemicals of the original mix plus naturally occurring materials and is stored in on site tanks before it is treated, disposed, or recycled. For all of you visual learners, here is a diagram that adequately sums up the process, courtesy of ProPublica.

So, before delving into the politics and regulations that surround the issue, it is important to know the history of this revolutionary technology. Developed in the 1940s, this process was initially intended to stimulate production from oil reservoirs that were declining in productivity. As of recently though, the process, combined with other new technologies like horizontal drilling, has become a way to access and develop domestic unconventional oil and gas reserves in shale deposits. These reserves are considered "unconventional" given that the gas is dispersed throughout the rock as opposed to all condensed in one underground location. The first experimental well to be hydraulically fractured was in Hugoton field located in southwestern Kansas and the first commercial fracturing treatment occurred in 1949 in Stephens County, Oklahoma by Halliburton, Co.

Experimental well in Hugoton Field, Kansas (1947). Courtesy of the Society of Petroleum Engineers

Since 1989, the number of onshore gas wells in the United States has gone from approximately 260,000 wells to 493,100 in 2009. Given this increase and according to the Petroleum Association of America, 90% of new natural gas wells in the US now depend on this process for resource production. As a result, approximately 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas has been produced for American consumers in the past six decades. That is a lot of natural gas and consequently, a large dependance and even larger demand on this technology. 

Given the increase in hydraulic fracturing's popularity through recent years there has been a growing need and demand for regulation. Regulation issues that surround the topic include: water regulation, disclosure laws, and long lasting environmental and public safety effects. The economic benefits that surround the industry are unquestionable. Undoubtedly, the process is a lucrative one yet there is high uncertainty that surrounds fracking regarding environmental and health effects. This uncertainty has created much skepticism in public opinion and has allowed for highly polarized rhetoric surrounding the issue although at times the facts are not always presented.

The issue stands highly divided. Both advocates for and against the process are headstrong in their views. Personally standing somewhere in the middle of the debate, I urge you to join me on exploring both sides of the story. Through this blog, I intend to display the known facts on either side of the argument so that together we can come to an informed opinion on this revolutionary process that I believe is not going anywhere anytime soon.