Analysis of Natural Gas Drilling in America

To analyze this argument you first have to look at its roots; where this debate spurred from. Natural Gas has been taken out of our lands since the late 1800s. Hydraulic fracturing was invented in the early 1900s and first commercially employed by Halliburton over 60 years ago. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is a method used by oil companies to elongate the life of a natural gas well. In hydraulic fracturing, these companies pump anywhere from 600,000 to 5 million gallons of water, sand, and chemical additives into the oil wells which creates an immense amount of pressure. This pressure causes cracks or “fractures” along the inside of oil well which in turn allows more oil from around a mile radius to pour into the well. Then somewhere between 15 and 80 percent of the sand, water, and chemicals pumped in will be recovered and disposed of. This process allows a well to produce much more oil and have greater productivity. About ninety percent of all oil wells in America today use Hydraulic Fracturing.

The location of the oil drilling is the second part of the issue that arises; drilling is happening in 32 states as we speak and is only growing. There are four major oil shales in the United States that are currently being drilled on: the Marcellus Shale under New York and Pennsylvania; and the Fayetteville, Barnett, and Haynesville Shales that are under many Midwest states, such as, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and many others. The most debated is the Marcellus Shale because it the most recently discovered and only just recently have companies been drilling on it. Besides the location of the oil drilling the actual land rights are highly controversial because the drilling takes place on public land that was constitutionally suppose to be protected and untouched. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulates what goes  on in the these lands and they are leasing millions upon millions of acres to big gas companies to drill; which on one side the government gains a lot of revenue but on the other side this land is protected and drilling is destroying much of its natural beauty.

So now that you know what and where fracking is and is happening, we can delve into the heart of the debate. I am focusing on two opposing sides to this argument: the Oil Companies and the Environmentalists. The aim of the Oil Companies is full disclosure of the chemicals and procedures used in drilling. “’Halliburton's proprietary fluids are the result of years of extensive research, development testing,’ said Diana Gabriel. ‘We have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are able to protect the fruits of the company's research….  We could lose our competitive advantage.’” “’It is like Coke protecting its syrup formula for many of these service companies,’ said Scott Rotruck, vice president of corporate development at Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s largest gas driller, which has been asked by New York State regulators to disclose the chemicals it uses.” It is unlawful in the eyes of the oil companies that the government can force them tell everyone the secret concoction they have been brewing for years. The general public just has to trust in the big oil companies’ judgment on whether the chemical additives are safe for the environment or not. However, there are many facts that the public does have access to. We know for certain around 20 of the chemicals used because OSHA and the government have released those; however, there are debates on exact number of chemicals (will go deeper into this later). Another fact that the oil companies tell us is that 99% of what is pumped into the wells during fracking is just water and sand. So only about 1 percent of the liquid pumped down underground is chemicals. Also the natural gas that is drilled out burns much cleaner than crude oil drilled in the ocean; when it comes down to it we need gas and the most efficient way to get it is on-shore drilling. So the basic argument of the gas companies is: natural gas burns cleaner than oil, 99% of the liquid is water or sand, and the 1% of chemicals is well studied and safe.

The basic goals of the environmentalists are getting an official list of the chemicals used in fracking and the exact procedures that go on in fracking so they can properly study what effects the drilling of natural gas has on the environment. One of the most prominent environmentalist against natural gas drilling, especially fracking, is Theo Colborn. She has studied and tracked down immense amounts of information that she has provided the public with; such as, a list of over 600 chemicals that she has found in wells and drilling sites. This number is quite a bit larger than the one the gas companies provided us with. What do many environmentalists believe about this; the gas companies are just flat out lying to us. Another example of these lies is that two of the major gas drilling companies just admitted lying to the government about using diesel in drilling (which was specifically outlawed). No one would know if they were adding chemicals they weren’t suppose to because they are legally not obligated to tell us.

It started with the EPA’s study in 2004 on the effects of hydro-fracturing; due to political pressure the administrator of the EPA said fracking was not harmful. This study is primarily what led to the exemption of hydraulic fracturing from the 2005 Safe Drinking Water Act; this exemption is what gives them the right of complete disclosure. Recently the EPA has acknowledged their mistake and is completing a full test of the process of hydraulic fracturing; Congress has also begun to realize that fracking could have negative side effects and has ordered their own tests to be done. So no one besides the companies drilling knows what they are putting into our ground but they have told us that at least 1% are chemicals and they pump in up to 5 million gallons of fluid into the ground; therefore, that would still be about 500,000 gallons of toxic chemicals. They also said that anywhere from 15 to 80 percent of this water is pumped out; so 20 to 85 percent of this toxic water is left underground. How is there not some sort of government regulation?

Although the environmentalists cannot prove that chemicals are coming specifically from hydro-fracking, there are hundreds of signs leading to that conclusion, many of which are actual stories of people’s homes and water becoming contaminated. Fracking has gone on in the Midwest for a few decades now and effects are seen by the inhabitants of this area. Many YouTube videos show the contamination of drinking water directly after companies began drilling. Also documentaries and other videos, such as, GasLand and this journalist’s video in Vanity Fair, show us first hand many of the harmful effects of fracking. So until the EPA completes their official testing we have to make our own beliefs on which side to believe; however, the EPA is beginning to believe that there are some serious problems.

When it comes to the political sphere of the debate, most politicians agree with one side or the other. Some politicians, like Henry A. Waxmen, believe that there needs to be some sort of regulation or at least knowledge of the chemicals and they are pushing for these laws. However, there are other politicians, such as James Inhofe, who believe in the gas companies one-hundred percent. Inhofe and others believe that if laws are passed regulating these companies it will hurt our economy. If we continue to drill out of the shales, they will produce enough oil to last 100 years and this drilling is making us less dependent on foreign nations, according to Inhofe. This is a big debate for President Obama because Former President Bush passed laws that extend the land rights even further to Oil Companies right before he left office. Obama is now forced to either keep Bush’s laws in place or change them until more information is found. The fate of our land rests in the hands of government.