iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Lynn R. Goldman

GET UPDATES FROM Lynn R. Goldman
 

Fracking: Abundant Energy, But at What Cost?

Posted: 10/24/2012 9:50 am

The boom in natural gas production across the United States takes advantage of a process called hydraulic fracturing. "Fracking" now accounts for more than 30 percent of the supply of natural gas and has created jobs in economically distressed parts of the United States. Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels, especially coal, producing much lower levels of harmful pollutants as well as carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming.

But along with the promise of economic benefits and a healthier planet comes the worry that the exponential growth in the industry is spawning troubling health risks in communities near fracking operations. These hazards include toxic chemicals in the water, polluted air, and even seismic activity caused by disposal of fracking waste waters.

About 2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas lies trapped beneath the surface of the United States in shale beds and other kinds of rock. Energy companies drill deep into the earth and then sideways. To create fracking wells they inject a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the rock bed in a process that frees the natural gas. After fracking, the wells stay in place to collect the gas.

In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported finding potentially dangerous substances linked to fracking in wells located in Wyoming. Since then, government agencies have been overwhelmed by calls for studies from communities and some of these have identified pollutants in drinking water wells and in the air. In addition, some of the chemicals -- not just those added as part of the fracking process but also chemicals brought to the surface in the waste water -- are linked to health problems such as disruption of the endocrine system
or even cancer.

As a pediatrician and an environmental health expert, I worry about people living near the drill sites, including young people. Children are more exposed to pollutants simply because they inhale or ingest more per body weight and often are less capable of detoxifying dangerous substances as efficiently as adults. They may be more susceptible because toxic exposures at critical periods of development can have life-long health consequences.

Researchers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have launched a large-scale study that will help shed light on fracking-related pollution of drinking or groundwater in communities across the country. Public health scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state health agencies are racing to investigate the reports of health problems in communities that have asked for assessments.

We need an approach to fracking that recognizes not only the overall societal benefits but also the potential for public health threats in communities.

What's the solution? Can we have our cake and eat it too?

First, the United States must start aggressively investing in public health research to systematically identify the unintended health consequences related to fracking and look for ways to prevent those risks.

Second, more disclosure is needed. The public has a right to know about potentially hazardous substances that are being used, handled or released in and around the natural gas drilling sites. We also need to know about methane (a potent greenhouse gas) emissions from natural
gas production and use.

Third, government at all levels needs to cooperate on efforts to produce gas safely, to protect water supplies, assure responsible waste management and control air emissions including methane.

Last, but not least, policymakers must find ways to involve local communities in decisions about fracking in populated areas. Some have called for bans on all fracking operations. Instead, I believe that we need management processes that address local conditions and local needs, and respect the right of local communities to regulate the location of gas development through local zoning ordinances.

Unless we take these steps, we run the risk that more communities will experience negative consequences from fracking, exposing children and others to potentially dangerous chemicals in the air, soil and water: That is a risk that we simply cannot tolerate.

 
FOLLOW COLLEGE
The boom in natural gas production across the United States takes advantage of a process called hydraulic fracturing. "Fracking" now accounts for more than 30 percent of the supply of natural gas and ...
The boom in natural gas production across the United States takes advantage of a process called hydraulic fracturing. "Fracking" now accounts for more than 30 percent of the supply of natural gas and ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 38
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:33 AM on 12/03/2012
"First, the United States must start aggressively investing in public health research to systematically identify the unintended health consequences related to fracking and look for ways to prevent those risks."

Translation: "I'd really like more money and research grants that are taxpayer funded, and I'm going to try to take advantage of this "controversy" to get some"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:47 AM on 11/26/2012
Here's to your backyards, "Americans". Wasn't a problem when it was somebody else's being dug up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlairCase
11:07 AM on 10/26/2012
The new oil and gas production technology is horizonal drilling, not fracking. Drillers have been fracking wells since the 1930s. Fracking fluid is 99.9% sand and water. A oil company executive recently drank a glass of frsacking fluid at a press conference to demonstrates its lack of toxicity. Haliburton makes one fracking formula in which all the chemicals are FDA approved as food additives. Texas requires all drillers to post their fracking formulas; other states should do the same. The main problem with fracking wastewater is its salinity. Fracking wastewater can be safely recycled at wastewater treatment plants for human consumption, but it's cheaper to pump it into wastewater injection wells. All drilling operations use wastewater injection wells, not just fracking operations. Many other industries also use wastewater injection well. Injection wells have been associated with an increase in minor earthquakes in two or three regions. The solution is to simply drill the injection wells in areas in regions not prone to earthquakes. Methane gas leaks are not caused by fracking but by faulty well casings near the surface. This is a problem that has to be monitored in all drilling operations.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:10 PM on 10/27/2012
BS. Fracking fluid are all proprietary., The Haliburton fracking fluid was proposed fluid, not the one they are using.

Fracked water cannot be cleaned by municiple water purification plants because of the solvent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:08 PM on 10/28/2012
PA smartly made it illegal to put flowback water through muni plants. That should be done everywhere. Also the industry needs to find a way to make treatments that exist now, which can purify frac flowback water to drinking water or even distilled water standards, universally used. As technology progresses, the costs will come way down on this type of treatment, and it's very welcome and needed.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/10/13/gas-drilling-company-recycling-fracking-water/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:26 PM on 10/24/2012
We see estimates about how much natural gas might be obtained from the Marcellus shale but no calculations of how much carbon dioxide would be released if all that gas were burned, Burning natural gas releases about the same amount of carbon dioxide as burning oil and about half as much as coal but the comparisons get tricky because fracking is generally associated with leakage of the powerful greenhouse gas methane and coal burning releases tiny particles in the atmosphere which reflect sunlight and therefore cause cooling. Research shows that during the next several decades and probably many decades beyond substituting natural gas will not help fight climate change and might even accelerate it. For more details see https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/5292/switching-coal-natural-gas-would-do-little-global-climate-study-indicates Even if fracking didn't cause local pollution problems, which appear to be extremely serious, it would make sense to leave the gas in the ground and fight global warming by greatly speeding up the transition to energy sources that do not release carbon dioxide. We have climate emergency. We need to stop pretending that we don't.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roosevelt Democrat
10:08 AM on 10/25/2012
"it would make sense to leave the gas in the ground and fight global warming by greatly speeding up the transition to energy sources that do not release carbon dioxide."

At what cost in jobs? We do this unilaterally and we destroy our manufacturing base. You think highly automated low labor cost, energy intensive solar cell manufactures went out of business competing with China because of labor cost or China's use of cheap dirty coal energy?

I'm not saying we should not change to green energy but it makes no sense if western nations do it and fast developing nations don't!

We need a mechanism that doesn't destroy our economy for no real gain!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:11 PM on 10/27/2012
More jobs from rooftop solar, offshore wind eletric cars and waste fuels to back it all up, that fracked gas by many times.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
11:02 PM on 12/02/2012
The United States leads the world in reducing greenhouse gases, due to hydraulic fracturing and the extensive natural gas supplies it has opened up for us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:25 AM on 10/25/2012
Somehow we have to break this "catch 22" situation where the US refuses to act until the fast developing countries act and they say they won't act until they see the US takes serious steps. Given that historically we are the biggest polluter we should go ahead with a commitment from the fast developing countries that they will soon follow. We have known for years that switching to clean energy would cost jobs in the fossil fuel industry and knew that people would require training. The planning for this transition should have been going on for more than a decade instead of arguing whether or not global warming is happening and whether humans are the cause. Ultimately we cannot fail act to save global civilization because some people will lose jobs. Those are the breaks. Change is always occurring with people losing jobs because of it and tough choices have to made before it is too late (if it isn't already).
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:12 PM on 10/27/2012
True, but the USA is the 4th largest user of solar wind and waste energy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
strangegal
01:26 PM on 10/24/2012
The first play about FRACKING was seen in San Francisco last year!
Playwright Larry Myers previews his
"fracking & shopping" at Theater for the New City's Halloween Ball on October 31.
He hasa series of short plays in his PANIC PLAYHOUSE PROJECT. Other plays are about STARVATION, HUNGER, FAMINE & the poorest of poor. These include "Rihana at the Miracle MeatLoaf Kitchen."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roosevelt Democrat
10:10 AM on 10/25/2012
Probably as misinforming as the movie "Gasland".
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:12 PM on 10/27/2012
Gasland has been proven correct. Who told you otherwise? Fox?