Theory and Fracking

The debate brewing across the nation over hydraulic fracturing has much of its roots and future in theory. There is no undoubtedly reliable proof that hydro-fracking is specifically harmful to the environment; no one can tell where the toxic water used in the process ends up. The environmentalists suggest that fracking is the only way people’s drinking water is getting contaminated; they find it unlikely that the simultaneous occurrence of gas drilling and water pollution is coincidence. The gas industry relies on the environmentalists’ inability to prove this incidence.

While the past is partly based on theory; the future is purely speculation. How will this debate come to an end? Will the end of the debate come with the end of fracking? Maybe a new renewable source of energy will be created? Personally, I believe the future of the argument will be shorter than many think; the world of renewable energy and biofuel is closer than imagined. I think as long as fracking and natural gas drilling is going on, there will be people who despise it. Moreover, both sides of the argument understand that the world will run out of oil and natural gas very soon. The only viable way to draw a conclusion to this debate is the invention of a new source of energy.  One possibility I have been contemplating recently is Algae. It seems that the future without reliance on oil and gas is closer than we have imagined and algae are a very real possibility for change. The use of algae as fuel has no negative environmental impacts as far as I can tell; it is renewable and can be grown in massive numbers in small areas. While all of this is theory I believe some sort of renewable energy is the only way to draw an end to this debate.

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.

Environmentalist Theo Colborn on Fracking

I just posted a video of Senator James Inhofe and his statements on the pro-drilling side of the debate; this video of Theo Colborn is almost a rebuttal of many of Inhofe’s points.

Once again for those of you who don’t like videos longer than 5 minutes I’ll sum it up:

·    Theo Colborn is an renown environmentalist who was pretty much the first person to delve into the harmful effects of hydraulic fracturing and onshore drilling

·    If you are fracking in the New York watershed area you will be using 3 to 8 million tons of water during the process that could be toxically contaminated

·    “Beauty” of fracking is that there aren’t as many perforations on the surface.

·    Westin Wilson works at the EPA and openly questioned the EPA study that declared fracking “to be little or no threat to drinking water” (this is the document Sen. Inhofe cited)

·    Wilson said that the administrator if the EPA was being pressured by many politicians to exempt fracking

·    A few months later Congress exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act which doesn’t require the oil companies to release specifics about chemicals and methods used to drill and frack.

·    Colborn created a list a 944 chemicals that have been found to be used by oil companies

·    Colborn emphasizes that 30 to 70% of the produced toxic water comes back up and we just don’t know at all where much of it goes

The main point of Theo Colborn’s argument is that we have proof that many harmful toxic chemicals are used during drilling but no proof that it is all being cleaned properly.

Sen. Inhofe for Pro-Drilling

Yes this video is 26 minutes long and this is only part one but I feel that this is a good video to showcase the pro-onshore drilling side of the argument. To sum it up for the people don’t want to watch the whole video, U.S. Senator James Inhofe makes many points backing onshore drilling and the use of Hydraulic Fracturing:

·         Hydraulic Fracturing has been used of half a century and no negative side effects have been   proved.

·         The EPA has conducted a test on the use of fracking and stated that there was no provable contamination of ground water due to drilling and fracking and never finished their testing.

·         They also state that fracking includes taking out the contaminated water left over.

·         Onshore drilling has many pros:

o   Less dependence on foreign nations

o   Make money

o   Produce jobs

o   America has enough oil under the surface to last us 100 years (he really stressed this point). Just in the oil shale in Pennsylvania and New York there is enough to last 35 years.

The main argument made by Senator Inhofe was that the claims made by the other side were not provable and “just completely false Mr. President.” To me this is not close to a reason of why we should even risk endangering our environment forever. Just because things haven’t been proved by the EPA, many acclaimed environmentalists have proved themselves; the EPA hasn’t even completed a full test (they are currently in the process).

As for the reasons he provides for expanding and continuing onshore drilling, I just don’t believe they are worth the risk. Yes we will have less dependence on foreign nations but who cares we will always be dependent on others nations like China for example. It would stimulate the economy and create jobs and but is that worth potentially harming the only world we have? And finally his most stressed point: the amount of oil available; maybe 100 years is a lot to him but when it comes to the life of the world, it is a small percent. Even to me that is short, I could possibly live that long myself and one lifetime of oil isn’t much in the grand scheme of things.

All in all, it seems like the argument of Inhofe is deny the claims as “yet to be proved” and throw out supportive facts about money and jobs, which yes they are important but I’m not sure they are important enough.  

Who the frack is BLM?

One of the organizations at the heart of Onshore Drilling in the United States is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM controls and manages our national park system, public lands, and national forests. “The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act authorizes oil and gas leasing on BLM, national forest, and other Federal lands, as well as private lands where the Federal government has retained mineral rights.” So in a quick summary, the government leases out our National Forest lands to Big Oil Companies so they can drill; that just sounds absurd to me. But they don’t lease out that much land do they?

I went to the BLM website to check out what they had to say about it; for each particular state they have information on Onshore Drilling and what is being done where. The first page I stumbled upon was the FAQs page for Utah, a popular destination of skiing and exploring the beautiful landscape. Guess how much land is available for the BLM to lease? “Approximately 17 million acres are available” according to the BLM and the “Utah BLM currently administers over 3,800 oil and gas leases, containing approximately 4.3 million acres of land.” That is 4.3 million acres of land that is already being drilled on in JUST UTAH. How does the BLM justify this? “According to a report by the Utah Energy Office, the drilling of a typical well in the Uintah Basin adds approximately 15 jobs and $360,000 in additional personal income.” So Onshore Drilling is okay because it creates jobs and money and helps out the economy, but is it worth possibly destroying our environment?

What is Fracking?

Fracking is the title of my blog so it must be important, right? Correct, it is the most significant issue in the debate between environmentalists and Oil Companies for many reasons. Hydraulic Fracturing, or “fracking,” is involved in the deep oil well drilling executed by big Oil Companies across America. In the process of drilling oil wells, which are generally about 8,000 feet deep, there is not enough pressure to efficiently extract the oil out of the ground; this is the purpose of fracking. Fracking is the method of pressurizing the well by forcing millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into the ground; therefore, creating fractures in the oil shale 8,000 feet down which allows the majority of the oil to flow into the well. Sounds like an efficient and safe method to get oil, right?

This is where the heart of the debate arises. Yes, fracking is efficient no one argues that; however, many argue that it is nowhere near “safe” for us or the environment. Hydro fracturing has many negative side effects according to environmentalists, pretty much all of which are denied by the Big Oil Companies. The millions of gallons of water pumped into the well during fracking is mixed with the oil and contaminated, they label this “produced water.” This water that is full of chemicals and oil is then left in pits to evaporate and produce harmful VOCs or seep into ground water that is used as drinking water for many people; also about 20-40% of this “produced water” and chemicals is just left in the well underground. This is the basis of the dispute with Big Oil Companies, who deny that any of this occurs.

IntroPost

Over the summer, HBO began airing its 2010 Summer Series of documentaries; one that I found particularly interesting was Gasland, a film by Josh Fox. This was right around the Deepwaters Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the public eye was focused down south; however, this documentary was centered in the Midwest. Josh Fox traveled the United States and dissected the practice and effects of drilling in the Midwest through interviews and information. I've seen the images of oil pumps in the blazing flat-lands of Texas and others states, such as the one at the top of this page; but I had never even heard of the spread of Big Oil Company drilling in the Midwest, the destruction and contamination they cause to the land and water, or the loopholes in government policies that allow this to happen.

My blog will focus on the who, what, where, when, why, and hows of this debate. Who is doing this and who is getting affected? What is small oil drilling and where is it happening? When did it start and why hasn't it stopped? How is the government knowingly allowing these companies to destroy the great American Frontier? I will examine these questions and both sides of the argument: the environmentalists that condemn this act and the corporate businessmen who control and instigate it. Through research, video and news postings, and examples I will dissect the practices of the Big Oil Companies and attempt to determine the correct stance on the issue. I aim to give my readers enough knowledge on the topic to have thier own opinions.

I hope you enjoy reading,
HB