Julie Schrecengost
Dr. Rebecca Reynolds
34-ENGL 102 Online
26 November 2011
Schrecengost 1
Hydraulic Fracturing: Is It Safe?
Recently, a gentleman, from an energy company, came knocking at our front door and wanted to know if we would be interested in leasing our land for oil and gas drilling. We live in northeast Ohio where, currently, there is a boom of activity in the interest of underground deposits of shale. Apparently, these shale deposits can potentially, be the holder of vast amounts of energy sources such as oil and gas. The energy company was asking us to sell them the right, for a time period of five years, to possibly drill a well on our land or on surrounding land to our property. Would leasing our land be a good idea? It would definitely be financially beneficial to us especially in these current economic times. Yet what would the ramifications of oil and gas drilling be? These were questions that we needed to find the answers to, so I began to research the topic. Oil and gas companies have discovered a new twist on an old technique of drilling for gas and oil called hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, as it is now known. The new twist is the addition of drilling horizontally into geological shale formations and pumping chemicals down into the shale at high pressure to help break up the formations. Hydraulic fracturing is the process that these energy companies use to extract oil and gas from way underground after breaking up these shale formations. Currently, there is a continuing debate as to whether this process is safe. Opponents of this issue feel that our drinking water supply

Schrecengost 2 could be compromised. The process of hydraulic fracturing is a safe procedure to extract valuable gas and oil from shale formations beneath the ground.
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, hydraulic fracturing is a process the energy companies use to maximize the extraction of underground resources such as natural gas, geothermal energy, oil and even water (“Hydraulic Fracturing Background
Information”). This process allows the oil and natural gas to move more easily from rock pores deep beneath the ground to the production wells that pump them to the surface for extraction
(“Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information”). As stated in an article entitled “Hydraulic
Fracking- Is It Safe?” which appeared in The National Driller, hydraulic fracturing has been around since 1947 and has “been employed in more than a million wells to extract more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion feet of natural gas from deep underground shale formations” (42). While this process is clearly not new, the process of drilling horizontal underground is, thus causing the concern of opponents of hydraulic fracturing. As explained on the EPA website, the process of fracturing a well begins with “building the necessary site infrastructure including well construction” before the drilling process can begin (Hydraulic
Fracturing Background Information”). Wells are then drilled vertically down hundreds or even thousands of feet beneath the surface and then horizontal drilling occurs which can be one thousand to six thousand feet away from the well itself (Hydraulic Fracturing Background
Information”). After the production wells are drilled, “fluids commonly made up of water and chemical additives are pumped into a geologic formation at high pressure” by high- pressure pumps during the hydraulic fracturing process (“Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information”).
In the newspaper article from the Columbus Dispatch entitled, “Fracking Future Controversial

Schrecengost 3
Method of Extracting Fuel From Shale Expanding in Ohio”, it states that “ The premise is that the mixture will shatter the shale and send trapped natural gas, oil propane and butane streaming to the surface”(1). The next step after shattering the shale is to pump a propping agent into the well to hold open the fractures and then the fracturing fluids rise to the surface to be recovered and at this point these fluids are known as flowback (“Hydraulic Fracturing
Background Information”). This whole process has stirred controversy among many.
Critics claim that the hydraulic fracturing process is an environmental nightmare. One concern that they seem to have is the fear that this process can contaminate our drinking water. In fact, in the article, “Don’t Fear Fracking”, written by Steve Heron, he states that a study done by Duke University found “ no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids”(13). This contradicts the opposition’s fears regarding water contamination. In the article, “The Truth about Fracking”, the author Chris
Mooney, attributes drinking water contamination that has occurred to not the underground drilling process of hydraulic fracturing, but to the faulty cementing job done closer to the surface of the well (80-85). Mooney states, “Faulty cementing is the leading suspect in possible sources of contamination, and by industry’s definition it is not part of fracking” (80-85).
Mooney explains that on every well, “drillers fill the gap between the gas pipe and the wall of the hole with concrete so the buoyant gas cannot rise up along the outside of the pipe and possibly seep into the groundwater” (80-85). This is where the concrete can fail if not properly poured and cause the contamination, not the fracking process itself. In the same manner,
Spencer Hunt from The Columbus Dispatch reports in his article that “ Drilling company officials say water- pollution concerns are overblown and there is no evidence that injected fracturing

Schrecengost 4 fluid can bubble up through the ground to pollute public or private water supplies”(Fracking
Future). Moreover, in March of 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would be conducting a study, requested by Congress that would evaluate potential impacts on drinking water by the hydraulic fracturing process (“EPA News Releases by
Date”). The initial results of this study will not be released until 2012 with the final study being released in 2014(“EPA News Releases by Date”). After this study is released there may be clarity provided to the environmental issue of drinking water contamination.
Consequently, opponents of fracking also feel that the use of these so called
“dangerous” chemicals is another cause for concern. The information in the article, “ Hydraulic
Fracturing- Is It Safe?”, disputes these claims by explaining, “ Fracturing fluids consist predominantly of water and sand-98 percent or more in a typical fracturing solution- while the rest is made up of high –viscosity chemical additives designed to maximize the effectiveness of the fracture job. Many of the additives consist of common household compounds, and while you certainly wouldn’t want to go out of your way to drink them, the EPA concluded in a 2004 study that the additives are not considered harmful to human life or the environment in the capacity they are used (42). Additionally, the article goes on to explain that the formula for each and every fracturing fluid used in the process must be disclosed at every drill site as mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (42).This same article goes on to state that “stringent state and federal regulations on well design and construction ensue that fracturing fluid additives do not migrate upward into active or treatable water reservoirs” (42).
Government regulation of the handling of fracking fluids and flowback is already set into place.
The National Driller explains that “After a fracturing job has been completed, the majority of

Schrecengost 5 fracturing fluids are recovered from the well and recycled in a closed system for future use.
Surface disposals of fracturing fluid are subject to the federal Clean Water Act , requiring treatment for any potentially harmful substances prior to discharge, or the federal Drinking
Water Act if disposed in an oil and gas injection well”(42). With all these regulations in place and concerns over the fracking fluids should be alleviated.
Moreover, critics of the fracturing process also have concerns regarding pollution. They feel that the whole process pollutes the environment from the actual drilling of the well to transporting the flowback liquids away from the drill site. In the article, “The Truth About
Fracking”, Mooney informs us that, “The massive industrial endeavor demands a staggering two to four million gallons of water for a single lateral, as well as 15,000 to 60, 0000 gallons of chemicals; multiply those quantities by the number of wells drilled at one site. Transporting the liquids involves fleets of tanker trucks and large storage containers” (80-85). The pollution from the machinery and trucks is their concern. Supporters of natural gas development argue that natural gas is well worth it because in the long run as stated in the article “Drilling Down: Fact vs. Fiction in the Great Fracking Debate”, “burning natural gas is cleaner than oil or gasoline, and it emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one- third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulfur oxides as coal combustion (104-109). As shown by these facts, the fracking process may emit some pollution into the air but in the long haul, natural gas is better for the environment in its everyday use because it is a much cleaner energy source.
Supporters of the natural gas and oil development site economic growth as the most positive outcome. In the article, “Don’t Fear Fracking”, Steve Heron states that “Oil and gas development means jobs, a growing tax base, improved infrastructure and state coffers

Schrecengost 6 expanded by severance tax receipts. When development is completed, the money stays and the buzz of activity leaves” (13). With the current economy in the United States, some feel that natural gas development is the way to go. Spencer Hunt , wrote in his article, “Fracking Future”,
“Supporters of shale- drilling, including Gov. John Kasich, see the beginning of an expanding oil- gas industry that could create thousands of Ohio jobs, all focused on producing a cheap, ‘clean’, energy supply that could last for generations (Fracking Future”). The gas and oil industry triggered massive growth in Pennsylvania. A Penn State study from July, “estimated that shale gas added $11.2 billion in economic value and supported 140,000 jobs” in Pennsylvania and
“predicts that both figure will grow to 17.2 billion and 216,000 jobs by 2015(“Fracking Future”).
Those are staggering statistics that show the positive economic effect that the gas and oil development is capable of triggering. The National Driller states in the article “Hydraulic
Fracturing- Is It safe?”, that the United States has a large amount of natural gas and that “The
Energy Information Administration estimates that the country has in excess of 2, 119 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, enough to power the United States for 88 years at current rates of consumption(42) The information in the journal goes on to mention that, “ unconventional resources, like shale gas, account for 60 percent of the offshore recoverable resources, representing an enormous advancement in the United States’ future energy outlook. In fact, half of the gas consumed today was produced from wells drilled within the last 3.5 years” (42). The economy in the United States has a bright future, as long as they take advantage of the advancements in the development of the oil and natural gas industry.
After considering all the facts, it is clear that the debate over the hydraulic fracturing process is a hot topic. It is apparent that there are many pros and cons in the debate over

Schrecengost 7 hydraulic fracturing. Even though the hydraulic fracturing process has been used for years, the new horizontal drilling technique combined with the use of fracturing chemicals draws debate.
As with anything new, the debate is strong and furious. There is little question, that the boost to our nation’s economy, from this advancement in the gas and oil industry, is a welcomed one.
The United States needs to seize this opportunity for economic growth to help provide jobs in the areas of construction, mining, drilling and even retail. Additionally, the advances of the use of horizontal drilling to extract oil and natural gas from deep beneath the earth’s surface, for our own nation’s use and others, could be our ticket for economic recovery. The opponent’s claim of water contamination has been disproven with research. The research has shown that there have been no proven cases of water contamination from the drilling process itself. The problem is, not with the hydraulic fracturing process itself, but with the cementing that occurs around the pipes closer to the surface of the well. This can be resolved with proper installation and regulation of the cement barrier. The problem would be completely eliminated. Natural gas is a very clean fuel and environmentally friendly. Although the fracturing process does emit some air pollution from the use of the equipment, machinery and the trucking of flowback water, the long term benefits of natural gas far outweigh the temporary, negative influences of the air pollution for the short term during the actual drilling of the well. A solution to this air pollution problem would be to power the drilling equipment and trucks with natural gas, thus making the whole drilling process a cleaner event. Seamus McGraw touches on this point in his article,” Drilling Down: Fact vs. Fiction in the Great Fracking Debate”, by writing, “Natural gas is affordable, abundant and American. It costs one-third less to fill up with natural gas than traditional gasoline” (104-109). This would enable the hydraulic fracturing process to become

Schrecengost 8 more economical as well. The use of the so-called dangerous fracturing fluids has been refuted by The EPA when they reported that there was no evidence that the chemicals are harmful. The
National Driller responded to the opposition of hydraulic fracturing by stating, “Recent attempts to portray hydraulic fracturing as a dangerous, unregulated practice are misleading at best. When done within the set parameters of the numerous state and federal regulations that govern safe drilling practices, hydraulic fracturing has the potential to provide the United States with an abundant supply of clean-burning natural gas for years to come” (42). Not only is the future of natural gas and oil development bright by the use of hydraulic fracturing, but it is also safe when done within the federal and state guidelines. That is why my family and I have decided to agree to lease our land to the oil and gas company for a period of 5 years.

Schrecengost 9
Works Cited
Heron, Steve. “Don’t Fear Fracking.” News & Observer 20 Oct. 2011: A13. Lexis Nexis Academic.
Web. 16 November 2011.
Hunt, Spencer. “Fracking Future.” The Columbus Dispatch. 25 September 2011. Web. 16
November 2011.
“Hydraulic Fracturing- Is It Safe?”. National Driller 32.7 (2011): 42, 44. ABI/INFORM Complete.
Web. 2 Dec. 2011.
McGraw, Seamus. “Drilling Down: Fact vs. fiction in The Great Fracking Debate.” Popular
Mechanics 188.9 (2011): 104-109. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 November 2011.
Mooney, Chris. “The Truth about Fracking.” Scientific American 305.5 (2011): 80-85. Academic
Search Complete. Web.
United States. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Hydraulic Fracturing
Background Information. Web. 16 November 2011.
United States. United States Environmental Protection Agency. News Releases by Date. Web. 16
November 2011.