Why not to Frack
The isolated valleys of north-central Pennsylvania, with their thick woodlands, little creeks flashing with brook trout, and overgrown abandoned fields are where I’ve lived since I was born. There are some people, but not very many, and they are all pleasant folks, even if a bit hickish. These woodlands have been undisturbed for almost a hundred years now since our last environmental disaster with logging. However, things are changing. Every once and a while, the normally pitch black night sky suddenly lights up with an orange glow from the North. Strange hums and screeches come from the forests. Last time I visited one of my favorite kayaking streams, the Red Moshannon, an entire mountainside was covered in fallen trees. A perfectly straight bare patch extended to the summit. Far from the seemingly paranormal activities I’ve explained, all of this is a result of a new natural gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking for short. It’s causing quite a stir in Pennsylvania as residents fight over what they truly value in their state.
Hydraulic fracturing has been in existence for a rather long time now, since the late 1940s. However, the practice has exploded in the last decade, with shale gas production increasing by about 11 times in that timeframe (IEA n.p.). As demand for home-grown energy increases, our reserves of traditional fossil fuels have begun to diminish. Therefore, unconventional sources of obtaining energy, such as hydraulic fracturing for natural gas or boiling tar sands for crude have become necessary. While there are economic benefits from natural gas drilling, it is my personal belief that the environmental degradation that I have witnessed is more than enough reason to halt the process of hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. Below I shall explore the many reasons why hydraulic fracturing is not just a bad idea overall, but dangerous, irresponsible, and will be a terrible burden on generations to come.
Before we can delve into all of the problems with hydraulic fracturing, first we need a bit of an overview. Traditional natural gas drilling is easy- you bore a hole in the ground and flammable gas comes shooting out. However, in Pennsylvania we don’t have much in the way of those deposits. Instead, we have two very deep shale formations, the Marcellus and Utica shales. These shales are hard, relatively impermeable layers that are saturated with natural gas. Simply drilling through them does nothing to release gas; instead, companies have to pump a mixture of sand, water, and chemicals under extraordinary pressure into the shale formations. The shale is split apart and the cracks are held open by the sand. Natural gas is then free to flow upward into pipelines to heat your home, cook your food, and make your electricity. Burning natural gas is quite clean, too. Natural gas is mostly methane, CH4. Oil is mostly made of larger hydrocarbons, such as octane, C8H12. Coal is even worse, almost pure carbon. When these are burned, CO2 and H2O are released. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, a substance that can cause global warming. In an ideal world its low carbon content would make natural gas much more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. However, if that were what really happened, I would not be writing a paper convincing you to oppose natural gas drilling in the state. There are many things in this process that can go terribly wrong.
To me, the most pressing concern related to hydraulic fracturing is the actual composition of the fluid used in the process because of its potential toxicity. In most states, the chemicals used in fracking fluids don’t have to be shared with the general public. However, Pennsylvania passed HB 1950 last year, an amendment to the state’s Statute 58 relating to oil and gas. This amendment requires unconventional natural gas drilling companies (such as those involved in hydraulic fracturing) to release all components of their hydraulic fracturing fluids to the general public. A detailed analysis of what has been used in each well in Pennsylvania is now available on the website www.fracfocus.org. This is a step in the right direction. However, there are many more hidden dangers.
The most obvious problem with this fracking chemical disclosure law is the vagueness of the fluid descriptions. As an example, let’s take the well Gulf USA 63H, about ten miles to the north of State College. Among the list of chemical additives listed on FracFocus are “petroleum distillates” (FracFocus, “Information Disclosure…). Petroleum distillates include any chemicals separated from petroleum- anything from the petroleum jelly that you use for chapped lips to the diesel fuel that goes in your tractor to the tar that makes up our roads. In short, we have no idea what exactly is going into our water. While it could be argued that drilling companies would not willingly put chemicals into a well that could cause health issues, we know this is not the case from past experience. Only recently, the EPA has begun to crack down on the use of diesel fuel in fracking fluid (New York Times n.p.). Yes, drilling companies have been pumping millions of diesel fuel into the ground, a substance that can cause cancer, cataracts, and other maladies when ingested (Diesel Fuel MSDS n.p.). To me, drilling companies seem so self-assured that their wells cannot leak that they show no regard for the safety of the chemicals they use.
To make matters worse, if a company isn’t content with just labeling its ingredients with non-descript labels, they can even completely bypass disclosure by filing a particular chemical as a “trade secret.” This can be because of its concentration, its chemical makeup, or how it is used in the process (HR 1950). The reason for this is to allow a company to keep a competitive edge over other drilling companies, but it also leaves the landowner and the rest of us in the dark over what may be contained in the fracturing fluid. The company is still required to disclose what the chemical is, but it will not go into the public record and only has to be shared with doctors who have to treat a victim of hydraulic fracturing fluid exposure or responders to a spill of the fluid. Even then, a doctor treating a patient has to promise in writing that they will not share the identity of a trade secret except for medical purposes (HR 1950). Simply stating that a chemical is a “trade secret” does not make it any less dangerous, but does completely change how it is reported. This kind of provision guts bills meant to regulate fracking and, in my opinion, completely undermines any confidence we should have in the state to regulate the natural gas industry.
Though natural gas companies often tout the fact that the actual extraction of natural gas takes place deep beneath fresh aquifers, this does not mean that groundwater is safe from hydraulic fracturing chemicals. As stated in a series of YouTube videos, there are multiple layers of steel and concrete between anything sent into a well and fresh water that we all rely on, supposedly making everything safe for the environment (Chesapeake Energy n.p.). If all went as planned, this would be true. However, well casings do leak. In fact, even in the best case scenario for fracking fluid containment, it is estimated by New York State researchers that 200 cubic meters of fracking fluid is somehow leaked by a hydraulic fracturing drilling rig on average, totaling with all wells to the equivalent of thousands of Olympic-sized swimming pools every year (Rozell and Reaven 1391). This incredible amount of waste has the potential to completely destroy drinking water resources in some areas, polluting waterways and damaging ecosystems. In some cases, this has already been proven to happen.
In Dimock, Pennsylvania, fracking has apparently already taken its toll. On the morning of January 1, 2009, Norma Fiorentino’s water tank got low enough that her pump turned on, just as it probably had thousands of mornings before. However, this time a stray spark was generated. Methane that had migrated from deep underground into her well ignited. Suddenly she had a new crater in her yard. Later testing revealed dangerously high levels of methane (StateImpact n.p.). Similar scenarios, illustrated by videos of Pennsylvania residents lighting their water on fire as it shoots from the tap, have cropped up on the Internet. As a suggestion, go to YouTube at some point. Search for videos with titles such as “methane in water” or “faucet on fire”. Such searches turn up several videos of ordinary people holding matches to their tap water, which then proceeds to ignite into a beautiful orange fireball. While some claims to the contrary have been voiced, this methane is not naturally occurring in aquifers. According to a 2011 study of the concentration of methane in groundwater, there is naturally a very low concentration of methane in groundwater from biological activity, like some bacteria that emit methane. However, the average concentration of methane in groundwater increased tremendously as the scientists took samples closer to drilling sites, with the average dissolved methane concentration near natural gas wells being at explosive levels. Chemical signatures of the methane also proved that it was from deep formations, not near-ground sources (Osborn et al. 8172). Sadly, it appears that many more “exploding faucet” videos are to come.
Even if we manage to fully mitigate any issues below ground caused by the leakage of fracking fluids, methane emissions from above ground could have even larger, more global impacts. According to a recent study by Cornell University researchers, including one of the foremost experts on hydraulic fracturing, Anthony Ingraffea, shows that methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing are currently being woefully underestimated. This fact is incredibly important, as methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas (a substance that causes global warming) than carbon dioxide. According to the same paper by Howarth et al., climate change is likely to irreparably damage our planet with any rise in temperatures over 1.8°C (543). As our planet has warmed, permafrost in the Arctic has already begun to melt. This thawing organic matter emits methane, which in turn could warm the planet more, resulting in a positive feedback loop that could warm the planet well past what civilization could deal with. It sounds fanciful, but it appears that something similar to this has happened before.
In fact, recent findings about our distant past can be used to predict what may be coming down the road for us. Approximately 55 million years ago, climate conditions were relatively stable. However, within a time span of only a few thousand years average temperatures shot up by about 11°F, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. According to a paper by Harvard scientists Farley, K. A., and S. F. Eltgroth, the most likely cause of this warming was a sudden release of methane, such as that stored in permafrost and on the bottom of the ocean. It’s completely possible that by emitting methane and other greenhouse gasses today we are setting ourselves up for a repeat of this event. If we continue on our current path, that 1.8°C temperature increase will have been crossed within 30 years, hence the urgency needed to stem methane emissions.
Despite all of these reasons that argue for banning hydraulic fracturing in our state, there is one factor that neither I nor anyone else can deny: fracking brings money. The cold reality is that our state government is bought and paid for by the natural gas industry and so are our citizens. Who can blame them? By leasing your land to a natural gas drilling company, you can make a decent chunk of change- some landowners at the beginning the shale boom earned $4000 to $5000 per acre (Record Online n.p.). An article that thoroughly explores this fact is Tim Worstall’s “Fracking Does Contaminate Groundwater; Carry on Drilling Regardless” on Forbes.com. The basic premise of his argument is that fracking is bad, but it is less so than the alternatives. If we don’t frack, we’ll need to replace that lost natural gas with other forms of energy, such as coal. As Mr. Worstall states, “It’s also true that if we don’t frakk, if we limit the drilling for natural gas, then more coal will be used to provide us with those same energy requirements. That’s worse for the climate as well as being more expensive: so that would also be bad.” As we examined above though, that isn’t necessarily the case. While coal certainly has its share of environmental catastrophe stories (Google “mountaintop removal mining” at some point), natural gas can produce even more potent greenhouse gasses. Truth be told, no fossil fuel can be considered “good” for the environment, just differing shades of “bad.” So what about renewable energy technologies? Mr. Worstall states “California has at least three deaths reported from solar installing: that is, at least I think it is, three more deaths than have resulted from groundwater contamination by frakking. That’s bad too.” While I too agree that falling off of a roof is bad, I do not believe that we can blame it on renewable energies.
Another of Mr. Worstall’s arguments is a basic part of economics: natural gas companies are paying the landowner for gas and the inconvenience of using his land. If the natural gas company pays enough to cover the inconvenience of having polluted water, then there should be no issue. If this were true, I could see the logic there. But unfortunately, if another landowner nearby decides not to lease their land to a drilling company, there is nothing stopping her groundwater from being polluted as well. Earlier I sited an article exploring methane migration into groundwater. They documented increased methane concentrations in water as far as nearly two miles from drilling operations (Osborn et al. 8173). Here’s the actual graphic from their report:
Hydraulic fracturing has been in existence for a rather long time now, since the late 1940s. However, the practice has exploded in the last decade, with shale gas production increasing by about 11 times in that timeframe (IEA n.p.). As demand for home-grown energy increases, our reserves of traditional fossil fuels have begun to diminish. Therefore, unconventional sources of obtaining energy, such as hydraulic fracturing for natural gas or boiling tar sands for crude have become necessary. While there are economic benefits from natural gas drilling, it is my personal belief that the environmental degradation that I have witnessed is more than enough reason to halt the process of hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. Below I shall explore the many reasons why hydraulic fracturing is not just a bad idea overall, but dangerous, irresponsible, and will be a terrible burden on generations to come.
Before we can delve into all of the problems with hydraulic fracturing, first we need a bit of an overview. Traditional natural gas drilling is easy- you bore a hole in the ground and flammable gas comes shooting out. However, in Pennsylvania we don’t have much in the way of those deposits. Instead, we have two very deep shale formations, the Marcellus and Utica shales. These shales are hard, relatively impermeable layers that are saturated with natural gas. Simply drilling through them does nothing to release gas; instead, companies have to pump a mixture of sand, water, and chemicals under extraordinary pressure into the shale formations. The shale is split apart and the cracks are held open by the sand. Natural gas is then free to flow upward into pipelines to heat your home, cook your food, and make your electricity. Burning natural gas is quite clean, too. Natural gas is mostly methane, CH4. Oil is mostly made of larger hydrocarbons, such as octane, C8H12. Coal is even worse, almost pure carbon. When these are burned, CO2 and H2O are released. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, a substance that can cause global warming. In an ideal world its low carbon content would make natural gas much more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. However, if that were what really happened, I would not be writing a paper convincing you to oppose natural gas drilling in the state. There are many things in this process that can go terribly wrong.
To me, the most pressing concern related to hydraulic fracturing is the actual composition of the fluid used in the process because of its potential toxicity. In most states, the chemicals used in fracking fluids don’t have to be shared with the general public. However, Pennsylvania passed HB 1950 last year, an amendment to the state’s Statute 58 relating to oil and gas. This amendment requires unconventional natural gas drilling companies (such as those involved in hydraulic fracturing) to release all components of their hydraulic fracturing fluids to the general public. A detailed analysis of what has been used in each well in Pennsylvania is now available on the website www.fracfocus.org. This is a step in the right direction. However, there are many more hidden dangers.
The most obvious problem with this fracking chemical disclosure law is the vagueness of the fluid descriptions. As an example, let’s take the well Gulf USA 63H, about ten miles to the north of State College. Among the list of chemical additives listed on FracFocus are “petroleum distillates” (FracFocus, “Information Disclosure…). Petroleum distillates include any chemicals separated from petroleum- anything from the petroleum jelly that you use for chapped lips to the diesel fuel that goes in your tractor to the tar that makes up our roads. In short, we have no idea what exactly is going into our water. While it could be argued that drilling companies would not willingly put chemicals into a well that could cause health issues, we know this is not the case from past experience. Only recently, the EPA has begun to crack down on the use of diesel fuel in fracking fluid (New York Times n.p.). Yes, drilling companies have been pumping millions of diesel fuel into the ground, a substance that can cause cancer, cataracts, and other maladies when ingested (Diesel Fuel MSDS n.p.). To me, drilling companies seem so self-assured that their wells cannot leak that they show no regard for the safety of the chemicals they use.
To make matters worse, if a company isn’t content with just labeling its ingredients with non-descript labels, they can even completely bypass disclosure by filing a particular chemical as a “trade secret.” This can be because of its concentration, its chemical makeup, or how it is used in the process (HR 1950). The reason for this is to allow a company to keep a competitive edge over other drilling companies, but it also leaves the landowner and the rest of us in the dark over what may be contained in the fracturing fluid. The company is still required to disclose what the chemical is, but it will not go into the public record and only has to be shared with doctors who have to treat a victim of hydraulic fracturing fluid exposure or responders to a spill of the fluid. Even then, a doctor treating a patient has to promise in writing that they will not share the identity of a trade secret except for medical purposes (HR 1950). Simply stating that a chemical is a “trade secret” does not make it any less dangerous, but does completely change how it is reported. This kind of provision guts bills meant to regulate fracking and, in my opinion, completely undermines any confidence we should have in the state to regulate the natural gas industry.
Though natural gas companies often tout the fact that the actual extraction of natural gas takes place deep beneath fresh aquifers, this does not mean that groundwater is safe from hydraulic fracturing chemicals. As stated in a series of YouTube videos, there are multiple layers of steel and concrete between anything sent into a well and fresh water that we all rely on, supposedly making everything safe for the environment (Chesapeake Energy n.p.). If all went as planned, this would be true. However, well casings do leak. In fact, even in the best case scenario for fracking fluid containment, it is estimated by New York State researchers that 200 cubic meters of fracking fluid is somehow leaked by a hydraulic fracturing drilling rig on average, totaling with all wells to the equivalent of thousands of Olympic-sized swimming pools every year (Rozell and Reaven 1391). This incredible amount of waste has the potential to completely destroy drinking water resources in some areas, polluting waterways and damaging ecosystems. In some cases, this has already been proven to happen.
In Dimock, Pennsylvania, fracking has apparently already taken its toll. On the morning of January 1, 2009, Norma Fiorentino’s water tank got low enough that her pump turned on, just as it probably had thousands of mornings before. However, this time a stray spark was generated. Methane that had migrated from deep underground into her well ignited. Suddenly she had a new crater in her yard. Later testing revealed dangerously high levels of methane (StateImpact n.p.). Similar scenarios, illustrated by videos of Pennsylvania residents lighting their water on fire as it shoots from the tap, have cropped up on the Internet. As a suggestion, go to YouTube at some point. Search for videos with titles such as “methane in water” or “faucet on fire”. Such searches turn up several videos of ordinary people holding matches to their tap water, which then proceeds to ignite into a beautiful orange fireball. While some claims to the contrary have been voiced, this methane is not naturally occurring in aquifers. According to a 2011 study of the concentration of methane in groundwater, there is naturally a very low concentration of methane in groundwater from biological activity, like some bacteria that emit methane. However, the average concentration of methane in groundwater increased tremendously as the scientists took samples closer to drilling sites, with the average dissolved methane concentration near natural gas wells being at explosive levels. Chemical signatures of the methane also proved that it was from deep formations, not near-ground sources (Osborn et al. 8172). Sadly, it appears that many more “exploding faucet” videos are to come.
Even if we manage to fully mitigate any issues below ground caused by the leakage of fracking fluids, methane emissions from above ground could have even larger, more global impacts. According to a recent study by Cornell University researchers, including one of the foremost experts on hydraulic fracturing, Anthony Ingraffea, shows that methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing are currently being woefully underestimated. This fact is incredibly important, as methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas (a substance that causes global warming) than carbon dioxide. According to the same paper by Howarth et al., climate change is likely to irreparably damage our planet with any rise in temperatures over 1.8°C (543). As our planet has warmed, permafrost in the Arctic has already begun to melt. This thawing organic matter emits methane, which in turn could warm the planet more, resulting in a positive feedback loop that could warm the planet well past what civilization could deal with. It sounds fanciful, but it appears that something similar to this has happened before.
In fact, recent findings about our distant past can be used to predict what may be coming down the road for us. Approximately 55 million years ago, climate conditions were relatively stable. However, within a time span of only a few thousand years average temperatures shot up by about 11°F, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. According to a paper by Harvard scientists Farley, K. A., and S. F. Eltgroth, the most likely cause of this warming was a sudden release of methane, such as that stored in permafrost and on the bottom of the ocean. It’s completely possible that by emitting methane and other greenhouse gasses today we are setting ourselves up for a repeat of this event. If we continue on our current path, that 1.8°C temperature increase will have been crossed within 30 years, hence the urgency needed to stem methane emissions.
Despite all of these reasons that argue for banning hydraulic fracturing in our state, there is one factor that neither I nor anyone else can deny: fracking brings money. The cold reality is that our state government is bought and paid for by the natural gas industry and so are our citizens. Who can blame them? By leasing your land to a natural gas drilling company, you can make a decent chunk of change- some landowners at the beginning the shale boom earned $4000 to $5000 per acre (Record Online n.p.). An article that thoroughly explores this fact is Tim Worstall’s “Fracking Does Contaminate Groundwater; Carry on Drilling Regardless” on Forbes.com. The basic premise of his argument is that fracking is bad, but it is less so than the alternatives. If we don’t frack, we’ll need to replace that lost natural gas with other forms of energy, such as coal. As Mr. Worstall states, “It’s also true that if we don’t frakk, if we limit the drilling for natural gas, then more coal will be used to provide us with those same energy requirements. That’s worse for the climate as well as being more expensive: so that would also be bad.” As we examined above though, that isn’t necessarily the case. While coal certainly has its share of environmental catastrophe stories (Google “mountaintop removal mining” at some point), natural gas can produce even more potent greenhouse gasses. Truth be told, no fossil fuel can be considered “good” for the environment, just differing shades of “bad.” So what about renewable energy technologies? Mr. Worstall states “California has at least three deaths reported from solar installing: that is, at least I think it is, three more deaths than have resulted from groundwater contamination by frakking. That’s bad too.” While I too agree that falling off of a roof is bad, I do not believe that we can blame it on renewable energies.
Another of Mr. Worstall’s arguments is a basic part of economics: natural gas companies are paying the landowner for gas and the inconvenience of using his land. If the natural gas company pays enough to cover the inconvenience of having polluted water, then there should be no issue. If this were true, I could see the logic there. But unfortunately, if another landowner nearby decides not to lease their land to a drilling company, there is nothing stopping her groundwater from being polluted as well. Earlier I sited an article exploring methane migration into groundwater. They documented increased methane concentrations in water as far as nearly two miles from drilling operations (Osborn et al. 8173). Here’s the actual graphic from their report:
It doesn’t take a scientist to find a correlation here. This disproves that those who are willing to lease their land are the only ones affected by natural gas drilling. In fact, it appears that anyone within miles of a well could potentially be affected by methane. By leasing your land out to a natural gas company, a landowner affects not only themselves, but also basically everyone within sight and beyond.
This all seems to bring us to one final question revolving around values. What do we truly value in our state? Do we value jobs and money or nature and the environment? Historically, we have definitely chosen money. First, it was through logging our state tree to get tannins for tanning furs. Next, it was the complete deforestation of most of the state to make charcoal for pig iron production. After we’d stripped the land of its most valuable asset, we dug it up and mined it for its coal. Stark reminders of these past mistakes still scar the landscape. The ancient hemlock forests of the past are all but non-existent; the mountain lions that once hid in them are long gone. Anyone who has ever explored Red Moshannon Creek has certainly noted its rusty color from acid mine drainage leaking out of abandoned coal mines; nothing but cranberries will grow in it. Most of the land west of Philipsburg to Clearfield is filled with massive piles of shale from strip mining and stunted shrubs; nothing else lives there. Small sinkholes now open up near Osceola Mills from old coal mines falling in on themselves; even my grandmother’s front porch has fallen victim. While these environmental disasters seem much greater in magnitude than anything hydraulic fracturing could ever cause, that’s not a risk we should be willing to take. Let’s give our land a break for once and think before we tear it apart. Until we can find other energy sources or at least find out how to safely exploit our gas resources, the most responsible thing to do is follow New York’s lead and put a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. However, seeing the current political environment in the Corbett administration, this seems incredibly unlikely. Therefore, I urge landowners in the Marcellus region to think before you frack. The stakes are too high and our knowledge too incomplete to continue on our currently reckless path towards the permanent contamination of our groundwater and overheating of our planet. All I ask of landowners is to do their research and fully understand the possible implications of hydraulic fracturing before they frack our state away.
Works Cited
"A Historical Prospective." FracFocus.org. Groundwater Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas, 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.
"Diesel Fuel Material Safety Data Sheet." MSDSPDS.BP.com. British Petroleum, 20 July 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
"Dimock, PA: "Ground Zero" In The Fight Over Fracking." StateImpact. NPR, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2013.
Farley, K. A., and S. F. Eltgroth. "An Alternative Age Model for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum Using Extraterrestrial 3He." Earth and Planetary Science Letters208.3-4 (2003): 135-48. Web.
"FAQs: Natural Gas." IEA.org. International Energy Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.
FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry. Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Product Component Information Disclosure for Gulf USA 63H. N.d. Raw data. N.p.
H.R. 1950, 2012-2013 Cong., Pennsylvania General Assembly Website § 3222.1 (2012) (enacted). Web.
Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. "Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles Et Al." Climate Change113.2 (2012): 538-49. Web.
"Landowners Who Leased Land for Fracking See Dreams of Riches Fading."RecordOnline.com. Dow Jones Local Media Group, Inc., 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
Osborn, Stephen G., Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson. "Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108.20 (2011): 8172-8176. Web.
Osborn et al. Figure 3. 2011. Image. From “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing.” Page 8173. Web.
Rozell, Daniel J., and Sheldon J. Reaven. "Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale." Risk Analysis 32.8 (2012): 1382-393. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.
Well Pad Preparation and Drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Chesapeake Energy.YouTube. N.p., 22 May 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2013.
Worstall, Tim. "Fracking Does Contaminate Groundwater: Carry on Drilling Regardless."Forbes.com. Forbes, 10 Dec. 2011. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.
Zeller, Tom. "Gas Drilling Technique Is Labeled a Violation." The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
This all seems to bring us to one final question revolving around values. What do we truly value in our state? Do we value jobs and money or nature and the environment? Historically, we have definitely chosen money. First, it was through logging our state tree to get tannins for tanning furs. Next, it was the complete deforestation of most of the state to make charcoal for pig iron production. After we’d stripped the land of its most valuable asset, we dug it up and mined it for its coal. Stark reminders of these past mistakes still scar the landscape. The ancient hemlock forests of the past are all but non-existent; the mountain lions that once hid in them are long gone. Anyone who has ever explored Red Moshannon Creek has certainly noted its rusty color from acid mine drainage leaking out of abandoned coal mines; nothing but cranberries will grow in it. Most of the land west of Philipsburg to Clearfield is filled with massive piles of shale from strip mining and stunted shrubs; nothing else lives there. Small sinkholes now open up near Osceola Mills from old coal mines falling in on themselves; even my grandmother’s front porch has fallen victim. While these environmental disasters seem much greater in magnitude than anything hydraulic fracturing could ever cause, that’s not a risk we should be willing to take. Let’s give our land a break for once and think before we tear it apart. Until we can find other energy sources or at least find out how to safely exploit our gas resources, the most responsible thing to do is follow New York’s lead and put a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. However, seeing the current political environment in the Corbett administration, this seems incredibly unlikely. Therefore, I urge landowners in the Marcellus region to think before you frack. The stakes are too high and our knowledge too incomplete to continue on our currently reckless path towards the permanent contamination of our groundwater and overheating of our planet. All I ask of landowners is to do their research and fully understand the possible implications of hydraulic fracturing before they frack our state away.
Works Cited
"A Historical Prospective." FracFocus.org. Groundwater Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas, 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.
"Diesel Fuel Material Safety Data Sheet." MSDSPDS.BP.com. British Petroleum, 20 July 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
"Dimock, PA: "Ground Zero" In The Fight Over Fracking." StateImpact. NPR, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2013.
Farley, K. A., and S. F. Eltgroth. "An Alternative Age Model for the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum Using Extraterrestrial 3He." Earth and Planetary Science Letters208.3-4 (2003): 135-48. Web.
"FAQs: Natural Gas." IEA.org. International Energy Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.
FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry. Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Product Component Information Disclosure for Gulf USA 63H. N.d. Raw data. N.p.
H.R. 1950, 2012-2013 Cong., Pennsylvania General Assembly Website § 3222.1 (2012) (enacted). Web.
Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. "Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles Et Al." Climate Change113.2 (2012): 538-49. Web.
"Landowners Who Leased Land for Fracking See Dreams of Riches Fading."RecordOnline.com. Dow Jones Local Media Group, Inc., 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.
Osborn, Stephen G., Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson. "Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108.20 (2011): 8172-8176. Web.
Osborn et al. Figure 3. 2011. Image. From “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing.” Page 8173. Web.
Rozell, Daniel J., and Sheldon J. Reaven. "Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale." Risk Analysis 32.8 (2012): 1382-393. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.
Well Pad Preparation and Drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Chesapeake Energy.YouTube. N.p., 22 May 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2013.
Worstall, Tim. "Fracking Does Contaminate Groundwater: Carry on Drilling Regardless."Forbes.com. Forbes, 10 Dec. 2011. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.
Zeller, Tom. "Gas Drilling Technique Is Labeled a Violation." The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.