Environmental Issues

Following increased economic activity secondary to the rising human population on earth, the pressures that human activity exert on the environment have come to fore (Saachs, 2008). Concerns of the increasing levels of global warming have prompted the organization of international forums to discuss means by which this worrisome trend can be halted so as to ensure sustainability of human activities. Carbon emissions, largely emanating from the exploitation of  fossil based fuels such as coal and oil, have been of particular concern as they carbon dioxide has been identified as the major gas contributing to the  trapping effect  (Saachs, 2008). It is recognition of this fact that governments the world over have been instituting policy changes aimed at reducing these emissions by encouraging the use of less polluting alternative  green  energy such as natural gas (Saachs, 2008).

Natural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbon gases trapped in the deeper layers of the earths core, formed from the of decay of dead buried plants with the decay process being driven by  high earth core temperatures and overlying pressures (EPA, 2010). A shale refers to a large deposit of such plant life that can be commercially exploited as an energy source, this layer usually lies deep to aquifers that are reservoirs of ground water (EPA,2010). Therefore, in order to access these deposits, drilling wells into the earth surface is mandatory, a process that puts these aquifers in danger of contamination. The environmental concerns raised have been taken a notch higher by the increase in the number of wells in the past decade (Stutz, 2010).

For instance  in the United States where natural gas is estimated to production is expected to double in the near future (Reuters, 2010). For instance in one of the most drilled counties , Garfield County , the number of wells has increased from hundreds to thousands in a mater of years (). It does not stop here, in 2009 plans were underway to exploit the nations largest deposits yet the Marcellus shale in New York state which coincidentally is an important watershed area supplying  the residents with portable water (Stutz, 2010). In digging these wells, an old technology that has recently gained favor in energy industry circles, is employed. Hydraulic fracturing or hydro fracture as it is known, is utilized in close to 90 of dug wells (Stutz, 2010). Originally exploited for mining of traditional fossil fuels, it was deemed to be largely Eco-friendly until recently when concerns of air, water and ground pollution surfaced in relation to the process involved.

Hydraulic fracturing involves digging wells into the ground through which a highly pressured mixture of water heated at 49 degrees Celsius, chemicals and sand are pumped into shale (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). This mixture, fracturing fluid, causes  pressures in the shale build up thus leading to faults being formed, natural gas then escapes into the well to be tapped on the surface (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). The notion of hydraulic fracturing or the exploitation of natural gas by themselves raise no eyebrows among environmental engineers, it is the quality of the processes and materials in use that are of concern ( Stutz, 2010). These concerns are a paradox as it is a common domain in environmental science that natural gas does burn better than traditional fossil fuels emitting lesser amounts of carbon dioxide and is thus a safer form of energy. What then forms the basis of this raising concern about environmental contamination

To begin with, the process of hydraulic fracturing requires enormous amounts of  energy for drilling and for heating and pumping the water. As it stands, most plants utilize diesel burning generators to satisfy this need, the carbon dioxide realized in the process is of concern but these concerns are usually negated by balancing them against the total expected benefits (Lustgarten, 2010). Air pollution from leaked methane has been fronted as another detrimental possibility,  environmentalists allude to the leakage of methane through faults generated by the drilling process as a contributor to air pollution in the locality of a pad by the gas (Lustgarten, 2010). Although methane is as a gas has not been blacklisted to be poisonous, the danger stems from prolonged exposure even for small amounts not normally picked by the sense of smell which can result in suffocation.

This leaked methane can also leak into aquifers thus contaminating water supplies to the locality. In water, the gas escapes via bubbles and as result is harmless, the danger stems from repeated exposure through bathing, washing and repeated handling that leads to symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, doziness and confusion as reported recently in Pennsylvania (Bloom, 2010). The build up of methane in plumbing system and periodical release in homes posses a fire hazard as the gas is highly flammable(Lustgarten,2010). Contamination of water becomes a greater concern in lieu of the possible contamination of aquifers by the fracturing fluid whose chemical components remain a closely guarded industry secrecy (Stutz, 2010). In addition, for Hydraulic fracturing to be deemed complete, the pumped in water is via the same conduit it was introduced through once faults have been formed in the shale so as to allow escape of natural gas.

The pumped out water is contaminated by ground minerals such as aluminium whose poisoning causes gastri intestinal disturbances  and iron which advsersly affects the formation of heam proteins in the body such as the oxygen carrying heamoglobin found in red blood cells (Lustgarten, 2009). The process of decay in earths core also releases radioactive substances which when incorporated into the effluent may pollute aqiufiers and the surface leading to exposure to radiation raising the possibility of development of cancers and various birth defects. Concerns have also been raised about the massive amounts of water utilized in the process (Lustgarten, 2009). A typical frack utilises approximately three million galons of water per well with the resultant effluent as descibed above not only contaminated but also possing a challenge in waste disposal.

Players in the energy industry have largely dismissed these concerns citing the minimal research done to back these claims, wide spread adherence to industry standards and the long time this technology has been in use with far spread incidents as reasons for their dismissal ( Stutuz, 2010). According to industry research, any reported incident of environmental contamination is likely to be a consequence of irresponsibility on the part of an engineer who failed to adhere to industry standards and thus should be likened to a plane crash in the aviation industry and should thus not provide grounds for wholesome castigation of Hydraulic fracturing (Lustgarten, 2009). Some of the seals that the industry utilizes to deter such incidences lie in proper undertaking of hydraulic fracturing.

According to industry sources the possibility of leaks involving the fracturing liquid are negligible since the walls of the dug tunnels are fortified by layers impregnable of steel and concrete (Lustgarten, 2010 ). The concerns of the effluent polluting the environment are further negated by the manner in which it is handled. First it is stored in protected pools on the surface where it is  scrubbed  off its contaminants, the solid waste generated can then be safely disposed while the   scrubbed  water is recycled reducing the water demands (Lustgarten, 2010). In a study  done about a decade ago by the Environmental Protection Agency  showed that a similar technology used in mining coal was environmentally safe leading to the temptation that its findings are applicable to hydraulic fracturing (Lustgarten, 2010). Much to the disappointment of environmental engineers, these sentiments by the energy industry held sway in the senate leading to the exemption of hydro fracturing from regulation by the safe drinking water act amendments in 2005 (Stutuz, 2010).

Debate on this issue was reignited from the most unlikely of sources, Garfield County in Colorado in December 2009 released the findings of a three year study the  Garfield County Hydro-geologic study  that investigated the relationship between gas leaks and drilling (Lustgarten, 2009). The report brought to fore twin issues. First, via forensic investigations they examines 700 methane samples from over 290 locations that showed increasing methane levels in drinking water that had a thermophilic footprint meaning it had come from underground sources. The second issue was the apparent gross nature of the contamination thus nullifying the notion of single isolated leaks as the cause (Lustgarten, 2009). These leaks were found to find their way to aquifers via naturally occurring faults in a process dubbed    vertical upward flow  and through weaknesses in the walls of the wells. Areas that were naturally heavily faulted were found to have higher levels of the rise in methane, other hydrocarbons and fracturing fluid (Lustgarten, 2009)

The report has been dismissed by industry players who question the methodology of the study especially how it determined the origin of the sampled methane since it is possible for the methane to have originated from decaying matter close to the ground and water aquifers ( Lustgarten, 2010). Recent events such as the fire near a  fracking site in Washington county close to the Delaware river in Pennsylvania have continued to provide evidence to the contrary. For a while now, Pennsylvania residents residing in the area of the large Marcellus shale have suffered from the effects of fracking (Bloom, 2010). Apart from the dizziness, nausea and cognitive symptoms of methane gas exposure, the nerve attacking compound that can result in sensory loss and disturbance has been found in samples of drinking water from the area. In January, 2009 a resident of the area had their water-well blown off by leaking accumulated methane gas despite attempts by the involved company to release the gas via vents dug in the property of the victim (Bloom,2010).

In Pennsylvania just as in all states in the United States and thanks to the Safe Water Drinking Act of 2005, the regulation of  fracking  has been left to the state and counties regulation. State authorities issue permits for fracking with the regulation being slack in some instances as fracking continues unabated by non permitted players. In the Pennsylvania fire case, the residents for weeks had been trying to contact their local Department for Environmental Protection (DEP) to alert them of leaking methane from the site to no avail (Bloom, 2010). The DEP had planned to issue 5000 new permits for fracking the Marcellus shale this year alone before local senators called for a freeze on permits until the national Environmental Protection Agency conducts an environmental impact assessment on  fracking  (Bloom, 2010 ).

The situation as concerns state led regulation of fracking lacks common ground of understanding. As it stands, Alabama has the sole distinction of having regulations specially crafted for hydraulic fracturing . Regulations that applied to other ground drilling activities such as in seismology and waste disposal apply in most other states with few minor changes punctuated along thus leaving room for evasion. An apt example is the states of Pennsylvania and New York which cater for disclosure of the chemical compounds used in fracking but fail to legislate this requirement. In light of this events to bills have been presented both in the senate and House of Representatives dubbed the FRAC Act ( Fracking Responsibility and Awareness Act). They have been co- sponsored by Democrats  Maurice Hinchey of New York, Jared Polis of Colorado and Diana DeGette for the House of Representatives while Democrat Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Chuck Schumer of New York presented it to Senate.

The bill seeks to introduce federal regulation in fracking with the aim of obligating energy companies to disclose the chemicals they use during  fracking  while limiting   fracking activities in areas not in proximity to water-shade areas (Lustgarten, 2009). This amendment to the 2005 Safe Drinking Water Act has faced stiff opposition from energy industry players who see it as a barrier to achieving the stipulated national goal of a slash in carbon emissions by 17 percent by the year 2020 from the 2005 levels (Reuters, 2010). Among their concerns has been the possibility of trade secrets being in the public domain, an expected increase in the cost of  fracking  and even the possibility on a ban on hydraulic fracking. This led to a stall in the adoption of the amendments.

Part of the calender of the current administration this year is to introduce and pass  The Climate Bill , this bill seeks to introduce federal regulation on  fracking  by introducing stipulations on disclosure of the chemicals utilized while leaving regulation of  fracking  activities within States to the involved states as per their geological uniqueness (Reuters,2010 ).  John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman have prepared an outline of the bill aimed at bridging a compromise still face opposition for a bill which had initially been slotted to be passed last October (Reuters, 2010). Energy companies seek to have changes on the disclosure clause by proposing that the should only be obligated to reveal the chemicals used to medical personnel in the event of an accident in order to protect trade secrets (Reuters, 2010).

Political will has often been at fault in the delays stuttering the policy change sought through the FRAC Act and Climate change bill (Reuters, 2010). Recent reports suggest that the bill may take even longer as other bills such as the immigration bill appear to take precedence (Reuters, 2010). The importance of the intended policy shift cannot be further amplified than by the move by the Obama administration to provide funds for the Environmental Protection Agency study that will investigate the impact of   fracking  on health (EPA, 2010). Such moves are laudable in lieu of the reports of certain symptom patterns endemic in  fracking  areas. This step illustrates the need of federal government involvement in the regulation of fracking activities. It will provide needed ammunition for the fight against environmental degradation as it will supplement State and Industry efforts (Lustgarten, 2009).

As alluded to above, the current situation has led to unwarranted by products that threaten the survival of man in more direct ways. Ignoring ill health and environmental contamination will nullify the very aims that natural gas exploitation promises to achieve. The policy change in its current format is an apt tool in avoiding this unfortunate scenario. State regulation will ensure that geographical concerns which are best understood by the State are managed properly while federal regulation will ensure investment in much needed research and uniformity in regulations that will enable punishment of culprits by lending assistance to States (Lustgarten, 2009). In addition, technology advancement will be let to run its course as energy companies seek to improve on hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling guided by State and Federal regulations (Lustgarten, 2009).

In conclusion, the responsibility that senate faces is enormous in its attempt to enable America contribute to global efforts aimed at reducing carbon gas emissions. The exploitation of Natural gas, a plausible alternative, should also be in keeping with this goal of environmental protection. Events happening to the contrary in the northwestern regions of the country prompt use to investigate these environmental and health concerns of hydraulic fracking in a holistic manner. To be able to achieve these goals, all stakeholders need to be brought on board in a collaborative effort. The Climate bill yet to be presented in the senate offers an opportunity to do so, the window as noted by one of the sponsors of the bill, independent Sen. Lieberman, should be exploited when it is still present (Reuters, 2010).