My Problems with (the word) “Fracking”

I was one of the 65-or-so people that participated in the recent protest on Chardon's square. It was my first ever political protest and I'm not that young. While I don't considered protesting the cornerstone activity of democracy – that would have to go to voting – I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I've never participated in one before. So what issue would finally inspire me to drag myself and the rest of my family out of the comfortable house on that chilly day?

Fracking

“Excuse me?” asks the as-yet-not-in-the-loop, “What in the heck is 'fracking'”?

Aside from being an obvious member of the verb species, the word doesn't reveal specific activity. Given that it rhymes with “cracking”, one may guess that “fracking” is the use of blunt force in order to extract a meaty kernel – and that would be a pretty good guess; “Fracking” is short for “fracturing”. Shale rock is fractured to get at energy-rich hydrocarbons.

And then there's the other word that comes to mind.

Here's where I'd like to point out the first of three problems I have with the word “fracking”. I'll begin by acknowledging the Chardon resident quoted in Glen Miller's excellent article covering the protest for this paper. I agree with one of your critiques of these protests. Using the word “to frack” in every possible tense (and in noun and adjective forms) en lieu of that other F word can be offensive, it is annoying, it dumbs down the issue and, therefore, makes the very legitimate concerns of those carrying the fracking signs vulnerable to easy dismissal.

In solidarity with my fellow protesters that day I would insist that we are not “jerks”. I'd prefer to think of us as patriots defending precious American resources - like drinkable water, a livable countryside, and future generations of healthy, productive Americans. We weren't trying to offend anyone - we're kind of stuck with the word. It's used by the gas industry itself and was picked up by the first protesters of the now-national movement of people trying to limit, regulate, and/or stop fracking. And it's conveniently short yet expressive for use in the limited space of protest and yard signs. The hopeful expectation is that responsible and engaged citizens will take it upon themselves to learn more than the signs or protest chants communicate.

Of course, it is my contention that the gas industry is just fine with people not learning more about fracking. The negative realities of the process are accruing with time as more rural communities become industrial extraction areas.

Google “fracking” and you'll undoubtedly find that the first one or more search results are industry websites that paid to be on the top of the list. Open any of these and you'll be reassured that fracking has been going on since the 1940s. Here's my next issue with the F word. The industry is right, fracking has been practiced for decades, and that makes it tempting to believe that they can do it safely. But saying that fracking has been going on for decades is like saying that we've been flying airplanes for 100 years. Technically that's true too but would you sit back and relax if the reincarnate Wright brothers were led to the cockpit of the 747 taking you to Disney World? The technology has changed.

Indeed the process being used today to access deep shale gas involves combined technologies of deep, directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing using “slick water”. Prior to that, fracking was done to vertical wells, more often than not at shallower depths, using smaller volumes of a gel to expand cracks in the shale.

In his new book “The End of Country”, Seamus McGraw describes the accidental discovery of a cheaper alternative to fracking gel when a worker at a gas well pad in Texas essentially pushed the wrong button, sending water instead of gel into the well bore. Despite the mishap, gas still flowed, and since water was cheaper and more readily available than the gel, a new fracking technique was born. The year was 1997. Soon after, drillers borrowed the directional drilling technology of off-shore oil exploration and applied it to land-based drilling, extending the reach from a given well pad by miles.

Today water is the main frack fluid, albeit with petrochemicals added to make it “slick”. And it's this slick water that is the crux of so many of the problems of fracking today. Gas companies use proprietary chemicals in their fluid at concentrations in the parts per hundred or parts per thousand range, including chemicals whose safe exposure limits are in the parts per million or billion. The length of the well bore necessitates huge volumes of this fluid. These must be trucked in by hundreds of tankers, which will occasionally be involved in traffic accidents; The fluid is often stored on site in open pits after some of it flows back out of the well, now more toxic and radioactive; And it must eventually be disposed of somewhere, somehow.

But these difficulties must have solutions – after all, the industry (and friendly politicians) remind us again and again that it's been “fracking” for decades, with tens of thousands of fracked wells already in Ohio. Technically true but intentionally misleading, today's shale gas wells are the jumbo jets of drilling.

My final problem with the term “fracking” is its nearly inseparable link, in the minds of those with a vague sense of the controversy, to images of flaming tap water. Yes, fracking has led to methane contamination of water wells - but with no described health problems associated with drinking methane-tainted water and no regulatory limits for contamination, how bad could that be? Sure if the methane accumulates in your house it could lead to asphyxiation or explosion, but with ventilation these outcomes should be avoidable.

The anecdotes and emerging science now point at a much broader array of likely problems and calculable health risks. Alluded to above, these problems include contamination by the chemicals used. In a recently published paper called “Impact of Gas Drilling on Animal and Human Health”, Cornell veterinarians Michelle Bamburger and Robert Oswald documented dozens of incidences of animal poisoning across six states that involved beef and dairy cattle, horses, dogs, chickens, sheep, fish, and deer that suffered seizures, had stillbirths, and/or died. They also documented vomiting, rashes, headaches and other complaints reported by the farmers. The myriad incidents that led to the chemical exposure included well blowouts, tank and containment pond leaks, and intentional dumping.

And it's not all about water anymore. Decreased air quality is a guaranteed result of shale gas drilling, and researchers are finally evaluating the risks posed by it. Denizens of gas-drilling areas are exposed to diesel fumes and any chemical that escapes from tanks, ponds, and pipes and becomes airborne. Analyzing air sample data over three years, Lisa McKenzie of the Colorado School of Public Health projected increased short and long term health risks, including cancer, for residents of Battle Mesa, CO living within a half mile of shale gas operations. Her paper, entitled "Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources” will soon be published and it's a call for air pollution to enter the national dialog on shale gas development.

It seems that fracking – both the activity and the word – will be around for a while longer. Annoying or not, it behooves those of us living above Devonian shale to thoroughly familiarize ourselves with the downsides of shale gas extraction or, if you prefer, familiarize ourselves with the fracking risks.