Fracking destroys environment, threatens valuable resources

Recently, the possibilities for alternative energy sources have expanded exponentially. These include renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar power, along with new techniques for the extraction and use of nonrenewable resources, most notably oil and natural gas. One such technique, hydraulic fracturing, has been at the forefront of the American energy scene in recent years. This process, used to extract previously inaccessible natural gas reserves, poses threats to public safety and the environment.

As defined by the United States Geological Survey, hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” uses water, sand, and other chemicals to access natural gas by creating new fractures in existing rock formations or by creating new fractures all together. This process allows oil and natural gas companies to take advantage of unconventional gas sources, but the techniques used in hydraulic fracturing methods have led to a firestorm of controversy, controversy that exists for good reason.

Currently, fracking operations exist in regions across the United States. Shale formations, less permeable rock structures rich in petroleum and natural gas, are the basis of fracking. According to the United States Department of Energy, shale formations are found in states including North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming, West Virginia, and more. Most of these states have active fracking operations within their borders.

Though natural gas has been extracted from shale rock since 1821, and, according to the United States Department of Energy, “fracking” has been commercially utilized since the late 1940s, it was not until the last forty years that the process was refined and researched enough to be economically viable. Following OPEC’s restriction of the oil supply during the 1970s the Department of Energy invested $137 million into fracking in an attempt to identify an alternative to Middle Eastern oil. This led to the development of key fracking technologies that have caused the expansion of fracking operations, directional and horizontal drilling. Since then, fracking has boomed, causing areas near shale rock formations to transform into commercial boom towns. Though economic development in previously stagnant areas has brought new jobs and opportunities, this positive impact is buoyed by a slew of environmental consequences.

Fracking poses a major threat to water supplies in the areas in which it exists. Stanford professor and researcher Rob Jackson identified and researched these threats and in several cases found that the drinking water of communities near active wells was contaminated with high levels of natural gas. This contamination results from structurally compromised wells, such as faulty cementing or flaws in the wells’ steel casing.

In addition, fracking threatens valuable groundwater reserves. Though most wells are dug below groundwater reservoirs, many companies are drilling directly into precious groundwater supplies and using shallow wells. This has outraged activists around the country, since chemicals used to extract natural gas are pumped through groundwater supplies. Though those practicing fracking have instated safety measures, the risk of contamination is exponentially increased when fracking occurs close to drinking-water sources.

Furthermore, contamination issues exist at another point in the fracking process. A mixture of water, chemicals, and sand is injected into shale formations to access natural gas, but what do fracking companies do with the wastewater after the process is completed? The Environmental Protection Agency states that companies must store the recovered wastewater on-site until it can be treated and the chemicals disposed of. However, the EPA also recognizes the ways in which this can go awry, stating that spills or leakage of the water may contaminate ground and surface water supplies along with the potential for inadequate treatment of wastewater. Thus, the possibility of water contamination is a constant when fracking.

The risk of water contamination alone is enough to prompt serious reconsideration of the relative benefits of hydraulic fracturing. Drinking water contamination is an unacceptable consequence due to its biological effects on large numbers of people. Though the EPA recognizes these risks, regulation has run aground due to bureaucratic divisions and the pervasive influence of natural gas lobbyists. Regulation, in many cases, has been left to the states, and many would argue that state governments have not taken harsh enough actions against those practicing fracking.

Fracking also poses another, possibly more deadly risk to those both inside and outside of areas with heavy hydraulic fracturing. This risk lies in the correlation between fracking operations and increased seismic activity. According to the United States Geologic Survey, the central and eastern regions of the United States experienced an average of twenty-one earthquakes of a magnitude three or higher between 1973-2008. From 2009-2013, this number has risen to ninety-nine earthquakes, and in 2014 alone there were 659 quakes. It is no coincidence that the number of fracking operations has also grown significantly since 2008.

The injection of wastewater causes tectonic faults to destabilize and slip across each other, generating seismic activity. While fracking has not caused every earthquake seen in states like Oklahoma, there is agreement that many quakes have been linked to fracking. The largest quake recorded and traced to fracking in the United States was a 5.6 in Oklahoma.

Recently, many Nebraskans felt the ground shaking. On September 3, another 5.6 magnitude quake rocked people from Nebraska to Texas. Due to the proximity of the quake to fracking operations, experts have concluded that fracking was a major factor in the intensity of the quake. Clearly, the public safety concerns posed by earthquakes present yet another argument against fracking.

Hydraulic fracturing is an expensive venture that reaps limited rewards for its efforts and environmental cost. Though it has generated economic growth in previously underdeveloped parts of the country, the government must extensively regulate fracking. Natural gas and chemicals used in the process have been found in drinking water due to oversight by natural gas companies. National and state governments must take greater initiative to not only protect drinking water supplies but also to protect the safety of citizens across the country. The high correlation between fracking and increased seismic activity cannot be ignored. If government agencies do not step in, the process will continue to endanger civilians and have severe ethical and environmental consequences.