A National Crisis in
the Making
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING – “FRACKING”
What is Fracking?
Fracking is a form of gas and oil well drilling
Drill 7,500 feet down
Forcing water, sand, and chemicals into shale – (a form of
sedimentary rock)
Release oil and gas
Shale Oil and Gas Reserves (U.S. Energy Information Administration – eia)
National Issues from Natural Gas
Production by Fracking
PROS
CONS
Creates jobs nationally
Water and air contamination
Less CO2 emissions than using coal or oil
Harmful to humans, livestock, and crops
Tax revenue
Excessive water usage
Lease income from Public Lands use
Energy independence from foreign oil ,create trade
surplus from export of liquid natural gas (LNG)
Geopolitical implications
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uVGY3sIBsA
Seismic activity
Costs for regulation, inspection, litigation, cleanup
Cumulative effects of fracking is still unknown
Generally unregulated
Still produces CO2 at significant levels
NOT A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE
The Expert Opinions on Fracking
BLM - (U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management)
“Companies pay for development of public energy resources.
Total royalty, rentals, and bonus payments vary from year to year.
In fiscal year 2008, $5.5 billion was paid to Federal and State
governments for Federal onshore energy leasing and
production. For oil and gas, half of this money goes to the States
and half goes to the U.S. Treasury.”
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy.html
USGS - (United States Geological Survey)
“USGS has conducted research that associates deepwell fluid
injection, a process sometimes used to dispose of produced waters
or flowback waters from hydraulic fracturing and gas production,
with the triggering of earthquakes.”
“Concerns also exist regarding the potential contamination of
fresh groundwater resources from oil and gas extraction wells that
use hydraulic fracturing; either from the petroleum resource being
produced or from the chemicals introduced in the fracturing
process. USGS is studying well water quality in several states
where hydraulic fracturing is being practiced, including Arkansas,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. “
http://www.usgs.gov/hydraulic_fracturing/
GAO – (U.S. Government Accountability Office)
Water is also the primary component of fracturing fluid. Table 3 shows the
average amount of freshwater used to drill and fracture a shale oil or gas well.
Average freshwater used (in gallons):
Shale play
For drilling
For hydraulic fracturing
Barnett
250,000
4,600,000
Eagle Ford
125,000
5,000,000
Haynesville
600,000
5,000,000
Marcellus
85,000
5,600,000
Niobrara
300,000
3,000,000
Table 3: Average Freshwater Use per Well for Drilling and Hydraulic
Fracturing
Source: GAO analysis of data reported by George King, Apache Corporation
(2011).
GAO – (U.S. Government Accountability Office)
“Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and
gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the
extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development
is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not
generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative
effects.”(Summary)
http://gao.gov/products/GAO-12-732
OSHA – (Occupational Safety & Health Administration)
“Hydraulic fracturing sand contains up to 99% silica. Breathing
silica can cause silicosis. Silicosis is a lung disease where lung
tissue around trapped silica particles reacts, causing inflammation
and scarring and reducing the lungs' ability to take in oxygen.ii
Workers who breathe silica day after day are at greater risk of
developing silicosis. Silica can also cause lung cancer and has been
linked to other diseases, such as tuberculosis, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, and kidney and autoimmune disease.”
https://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.html
U.S. Department of Energy
“Protection of water quality through a systems approach. At
present neither EPA or the states are engaged in developing a
systems/lifecycle approach to water management.”
“Agencies should review field experience and modernize rules
and enforcement practices to ensure protection of drinking and
surface waters. Reflects Subcommittee unease that the present
arrangement of shared federal and state responsibility for cradle-tograve water quality is not working smoothly or as well as it
should.”
“Managing short-term and cumulative impacts on communities,
land use, wildlife, and ecologies. No new studies launched; funding
required from federal agencies or from states.”(p.8)
http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/111811_final_report.p
df
U.S. Department of Energy
“The Subcommittee believes that if action is not taken to reduce
the environmental impact accompanying the very considerable
expansion of shale gas production expected across the country –
perhaps as many as 100,000 wells over the next several decades –
there is a real risk of serious environmental consequences causing a
loss of public confidence that could delay or stop this activity.
 The Subcommittee cautions that whether its approach is followed
or not, some concerted and sustained action is needed to avoid
excessive environmental impacts of shale gas production and the
consequent risk of public opposition to its continuation and
expansion.” (Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Second Ninety
Day Report November 18, 2011, p.10)
http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/111811_final_report.p
df
EPA – (Environmental Protection Agency)
“Overall, EPA found that applying wastewater discharge
requirements would impose significant burdens in terms of immediate
or early shutdown and loss of gas production from the projects that
remained economically viable at 2008 and 2010. For new projects, EPA
reached the following findings: (1) CBM projects do not generally
appear economically viable at present, and for many development
opportunities, for substantial periods into the future, and (2) discharge
requirements would further delay these projects‟ economic viability.
Given these findings for both existing and new sources, EPA‟s
judgment at this time is that it should not move forward with additional
regulation of wastewater discharges from CBM projects. Pending
changes in CBM gas production economics, and increased volume of
CBM activity and wastewater discharges, and possible changes in the
available wastewater management approaches and/or associated costs,
EPA may revisit this decision in future years.”
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/upload/cbme
a2013.pdf
There are benefits to increased production of natural gas from fracking
Conclusions
However, every government agency that has investigated fracking concurs
that fracking poses many difficult, and possibly unknown, complications to
the environment and to humans
Continued dependence on natural gas development will delay development
of renewal energy sources
Current infrastructure can not easily convert from coal and oil based
sources to natural gas
Dangers are still undetermined
WEBSITE: http://perspectivesonfracking.wordpress.com/