1. Hydraulic Fracturing (Hydrofracking): The Risks and Rewards of the Controversial Drilling Technique

And the debate has been loud, as would be expected when enough natural gas to satisfy US demand for at least a decade is set against possible harm to the water supply for almost 10 million people in one of the world capitals of media, finance, and law.

The real risk is pollution. Hydraulic fracturing can be done using nothing but pure water and clean sand—in fact, those are the substances used for opening up drinking water wells. However, for a number of reasons, including cost, availability, and other desired properties, a wide variety of other substances are also used, including:

• Diesel fuel (used because it’s more effective at carrying the proppant into fissures than water), which contains benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and naphthalene.

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

• Methanol.

• Formaldehyde.

• Ethylene glycol.

• Glycol ethers.

• Hydrochloric acid.

• Sodium hydroxide.

These chemicals are present in concentrations many times harmful levels.

While much of the fracturing fluid is pumped out after doing its job (and it has to be pumped out, to clear the way for oil or gas), it’s impossible to get it all. Studies show that 20–40 percent of the fluid will remain underground.

(Note: the study was commissioned in the context of using hydraulic fracturing to extract methane from coal seams; technically, the study’s findings only apply to that one subset of hydraulic fracturing.)

The EPA that found no risk from hydraulic fracturing was the Bush–Cheney EPA, and Bush and Cheney were advocates of drilling and fossil fuels.

According to public interest and advocacy group Earthworks, communities in at least six states (AL, CO, NM, VA, WV, WY) have reported changes in drinking water quality and/or quantity after hydraulic fracturing was performed nearby. Complaints about drinking water included clouding, black or grey sediments, iron precipitates, black grease, floating particles, diesel fuel or odors, rashes from bathing, reduced water flow, gassy taste, and, last but certainly not least, methane in water. Methane in water supplies is the culprit behind the spectacular flaming tap water some homeowners have experienced.

Are there risks to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing? While the scope of the risk is subject to debate (and is being debated!) the fact that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act has to be taken as proof positive that there is some risk. After all, if there wasn’t any risk to drinking water, there’d be no need to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Act.

Can Hydraulic Fracturing Be Done Safely? Mostly

The risk of chemical contaminating drinking water can be substantially reduced by fairly simple measures:

• Use only clean sand and water, or, if you need to use other substances as well for a given project, use only nontoxic additives. Nontoxic additives are available—they are used in offshore wells, to prevent contamination of the marine ecosystem and food chain (which includes seafood that human beings eat).

• Use steel holding tanks for the residue of hydraulic fracturing—the excess fluid which is pumped or escapes back to the surface—instead of storage pits which are prone to leakage.

• Don’t use hydraulic fracturing in watersheds or the midst of aquifers that provide drinking water. That’s why Chesapeake Energy, bowing to public sentiment and political pressure, has agreed to not drill in the upstate New York watershed.

However, even if these precautions are taken, there are still environmental and health risks–radioactivity, for one. Water samples brought up by drilling in New York, in the Marcellus Shale formation (see below), show levels of radium-226 at close to 300 times the limit for safe discharge into the environment—and thousands of times safe drinking levels. Since hydrofracking and drilling in “hot” formations will result in radioactive water being brought up, there may sometimes be a level of environmental and health risk which is effectively irreducible.

That seems like it may be the case in New York, with regards to the Marcellus Shale. Water samples from drilling are radioactive, and the state simply does not have the facilities to decontaminate or filter the wastewater to be free of radiation.
So: chemically tainted water, radioactive water, even potentially flammable water. Seems like it should be an easy decision to make: don’t hydraulically fracture where there are people, or drinking water supplies.