Research Digs Deep into the Fracking Controversy

The turmoil in oil-producing nations is triggering turmoil at home, as rising oil prices force Americans to pay more at the pump. Meanwhile, there's a growing industry that's promising jobs and access to cheaper energy resources on American soil, but it's not without its controversy. Deborah Kittner, a University of Cincinnati doctoral student in geography, presents, "What's the Fracking Problem? Extraction Industry's Neglect of the Locals in the Pennsylvania Marcellus Region," at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers in Seattle.

Fracking involves using millions of gallons of water, sand and a chemical cocktail to break up organic-rich shale to release natural gas resources. Kittner's research examined the industry in Pennsylvania, known as the "sweet spot" for this resource, because of the abundance of natural gas. Pittsburgh has now outlawed fracking in its city limits as has Buffalo, N.Y., amid concerns that chemical leaks could contaminate groundwater, wells and other water resources.

The EPA is now doing additional study on the relationship of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water and groundwater after congress stated its concern about the potential adverse impact that the process may have on water quality and public health. Kittner attended an EPA hearing and also interviewed people in the hydraulic fracturing industry. She says billions of dollars from domestic as well as international sources have been invested in the industry.

The chemical cocktail used in the process is actually relatively small. The mixture is about 95-percent water, nearly five percent sand, and the rest chemical, yet, Kittner says some of those chemicals are known toxins and carcinogens, hence, the "not in my backyard" backlash from communities that can be prospects for drilling. The flow-back water from drilling is naturally a very salty brine, prone to bacterial growth, and potentially contaminated with heavy metals, Kittner says. In addition, there's the question of how to properly dispose of millions of gallons of contaminated water, as well as concerns about trucking it on winding, rural back roads.

Based on her research, Kittner says that overall, the industry is "working to be environmentally responsible, and it becomes frustrated at companies that do otherwise."

"I think that the study that the EPA is doing is going to be really helpful, and the industry – however reluctant to new regulations – is working with the EPA on this," she said.

Comments

Wed, Apr 20, 2011 Hardhead

A quick perusal of the Oil & Gas Journal documents that fracking has been an established oilfield practice since 1947 - that's over six DECADES ago! For some reason, there wasn't any controversy until recently, when the advent of producing mass quantities of natural gas from shale (economically) threatens to derail the enviros' pipe dreams of building wind and solar power plants (in someone else's backyard).

Wed, Apr 20, 2011 JB Oklahoma

The comment on Apr 14 from Ohio is totally wrong. The "gas people" have lots of oversight from multiple sources, oil and gas is heavily regulated at both the federal and state level. HF is regulated in each state and those regulations are changing rapidly to keep up with the industry. Since this person is apparently relying on Gasland for their information, they are severely misinformed. There is no scientific evidence that deep HF impacts any drinking water zones, period. There are certainly lots of anecdotal stories, but none can be verified with facts and data. As more of these cases come up, more information is coming out that HF is not having an impact on drinkable grounwater zone. A recent case in the Barnet Shale around Fort Worth highlighted the fact that deep HF is not impacting groundwater used for domestic, agriculture or other consumption. Please, let's stick to facts, not so called independent documentaries and accusations that cannot be backed up with science.

Tue, Apr 19, 2011 Colorado

HF has proven to be a safe practice. It does need additional federal regulation. It is already regulated by states. Industry does need to do a better job of protecting shallow groundwater quality from spills at or near the surface, incuding frac and flowback water. Injection of produced water is regulated under the CWA, which is intended to protect shallow groundwater. Gasland is contrived and does not present facts and honor science. However, Gasland makes a point in that oil and gas companies (and especially their contractors who perform the work) need to improve their environmental performance.

Thu, Apr 14, 2011 Ohio

I thought I was pro hydraulic fracturing until I watched a independent documentary called Gasland. Although I would not take it as my soul source of information it showed how fracturing has contaminated many drinking water sources. It also seems that the well drillers are exempt from the Clean Water Act governed by the EPA. So EPA can do a study but have no real authority. The gas people seem to have very little (if any) oversight and no government agency has the authority to regulate them.

Wed, Apr 13, 2011

What is the point of this article? Obey the law, adhere to disposal requirements, treat the water and reuse it or release it. The cost is added to the extraction & transport costs for the gas?

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above