Fracking times [Act I]

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” as it is more commonly known, is just one small method of the broader process of unconventional development of oil and natural gas, being a proven drilling technology used for extracting oil, natural gas, geothermal energy, or water from deep underground.[1] As the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) has defined:

It is the process of injecting liquid and materials at high pressure to create small fractures within tight shale formations to stimulate the production and safely extract energy from an underground well after the drilling has ended and the rig and derrick are removed from the site. The process takes about three to five days, on average, to complete from start to finish. Once the fracturing operation is finished, the well is considered “completed” and is now ready to safely produce oil or natural gas for years, even decades, to come.[2]

The process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside and can be carried out vertically, or more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer.[3] The mixture pumped into the well to fracture the rock is known as slickwater, a substance mostly composed of water that may contain a wide range of additives -detergents, salts, acids, alcohols, lubricants and disinfectants - and chemicals that serve an engineering purpose.[4] In addition to the additives, "proppants" such as sand and ceramic particles are also pumped into the fracking well, added to prop open the fractures that form under pressure, thereby ensuring that gas and oil can continue to flow freely out of rock fractures even after pumping pressure is released.[5]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has explained before, once the underground rock is shattered and proppants are pumped into place, trapped reservoirs of gas and oil are released and pumped back to the surface, along with millions of gallons of "flowback" liquid, which contains water and a number of contaminants, including: radioactive material, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and other toxins. This wastewater is stored on the fracking site in pits, injected into deep underground wells or disposed of off-site at a wastewater treatment facility.[6]

At first glance, one could assume that this phenomenon might be an environmental hazard that could destroy drinking water supplies, pollute the air, contribute to the greenhouse gases and even trigger earthquakes. It has been resonating with a broad audience, due to the huge amounts of water used and the potentially carcinogenic chemicals, which can escape during drilling and contaminate groundwater around the fracking site. Furthermore, one would easily agree with the environmentalist campaigners, affirming that fracking is distracting energy firms and governments from investing in renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels.[7]  

On the other hand, scientists like Mark Zoback, Stanford University geophysicist, express how fracking far outweigh its costs not only economically, but environmentally. He even argued that natural gas is able to replace coal and "dirty diesel" at significant scale throughout the world, supporting economic growth while slashing carbon emissions.[8]

"We did it because there were so many important and obvious environmental benefits to the utilization of natural gas […] so it’s somewhat ironic to be asked to argue for the notion that these benefits outweigh the environmental costs, when it’s the environmental benefits that got me into this business in the first place. […]  Natural gas is an ideal fuel to decarbonize and cause less pollution in the energy system in the future. It is not the end; it is a means to get to a decarbonized energy world."[9]

Some of the environmental benefits of fracking can be enumerated as it follows:[10]

·         natural gas replaces coal power, it actually can recover both crude oil and natural gas from shale deposits in unprecedented amounts,  making natural gas a more viable solution than coal;

·         safety concerns unfounded, there are two major misunderstandings that this relates to a failure to understand the hydraulic fracturing process and a failure to explore the data;

·         reinvestment into the community, bringing energy investors into local economies, during which time they invest directly into charity groups that perform environmental work and generally increase the value of their community.

Following this line of argumentation, one might be strangely in favor of this method. However, there is a plethora of controversy surrounding the topic despite of none environmentally jeopardizing effects…

The next time in Fracking Times - Act II, we will find out why the polemic persists no matter how safe these practices are.