Fracking: A Medically Irresponsible Practice

By: Evelyn Knowles

What Is It?

Induced hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a mechanism by which natural gases can be extracted from the earth. The event of water naturally forcing open large cracks in shale is nothing new geologically, but when this event is induced by injecting high-velocity water, sand, and chemicals into the shale, there are indisputable chemical repercussions which subsequently affect the physical health of the surrounding environment and residents. While the chemical components account for only a fraction of a percent of the total volume of fracturing fluid injected into the shale, the health consequences of exposure to even the present quantity of chemicals range from kidney damage to increased risk of cancer.

Who Does It?

Schlumberger, Haliburton, and Sanjel are just a few of the billion-dollar corporations that perform hydraulic fracturing. Like other forms of oil drilling, fracking is not sustainable (you can only use it on any given well a very limited number of times), however it is extremely profitable. The oil companies are making powerful offers to states to lease land upon which to drill, offering thousands of dollars per month to land owners for a lease. In fact, Ohio was offered a total of over $180 million from oil companies for drilling leases in state parks and forests.

Naturally, those who hold fracking in their best fiscal interest declare that the practice is completely safe. But some organizations beg to differ. According to this report from 2011 by the US Environmental Working Group (EWG), “contrary to industry’s insistence that hydraulic fracturing is safe for underground water supplies… hydraulic fracturing poses significant risks to the drinking water sources on which more than 100 million Americans depend.” Toxic chemicals leeching into the ground water isn’t the only potential risk. Evaporation processes can even contaminate nearby air, creating risky environments particularly for on-site employees. Immediate health risks for employees include chemical burns to the skin, but accidental inhalation or repeated exposure to these substances could also cause longitudinal damage.

Why is it Dangerous?

While many fracking policies require safeguards such as cementing fractures to prevent chemicals from leeching into the soil and groundwater, these practices can never be foolproof. Primarily, hydraulic fracturing happens naturally all the time, and it is very possible that a natural (un-cemented) fracture could interrupt an induced fracture, allowing the fluid chemicals to leave the cemented well and make it into the ground. The pipes used in the collection of the gases themselves have also been reported to break on occasion, also leading to contamination with compounds such as methane. Unfortunately, due to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Fracking is not subject to EPA rigorous chemical monitoring. This allows drilling companies more leeway in what they put into the fracking fluid and inject into the ground. For those residing near hydraulic fracturing sites, this means that any number of dangerous chemical could be in the air they breathe and the water they drink, causing major health issues.

What Are the Health Risks?

Potential chemical contamination from fracking fluids, either in the groundwater or the air, pose serious potential health risks. While companies are not required to report the chemical components in fracking fluids, compounds such as benzene, toluene, hydrochloric acid, and methanol are but a few of the hundreds of chemicals potentially present. According to the Health Protection Agency, repeated toluene exposure could be very detrimental to an individual’s health. “Distal renal tubular acidosis has been associated with abusers of toluene… Muscle weakness, nausea, and vomiting are common symptoms and are thought [to] be due to an electrolyte imbalance caused by the renal acidosis.” Many of the other chemicals commonly used in fracking fluids such as benzene trigger health issues that in turn also cause dangerous chemical imbalances. Residents who live near to drilling sites have not uncommonly reported similar symptoms, along with foul-smelling or even flammable tap water. Medically speaking, exposing surrounding people to such dangerous chemicals (many of which are also known carcinogens) is irresponsible on the part of the drilling companies and should be ceased altogether. Unfortunately, there is simply no way to ensure the safety of residents living near fracking sites. This is why people who live in fracking environments are encouraged to keep a close eye on their personal health by taking regular checkups.

The Response

Resident resistance to nearby fracking has been in the news often recently, particularly in New York where a moratorium on Fracking is about to expire last month. Sandra Steingraber, PhD ecologist has been on the front lines of resisting fracking in New York. “When you blow up the bedrock and inject it with toxic chemicals,” Steingraber states, “you cannot control or fix what happens.” Even with all of the precautions that drilling companies can take, many residents feel that the risks of fracking are still far too great and the entire practice is socially irresponsible.

The number of lawsuits against companies performing hydraulic fracturing is rising. People living near fracking sites, or employees who handle the toxic fluids, are making more and more noise with regards to the health detriments caused by the practice. Initially performed in the mid 20^th century, the negative effects of fracking were not immediately known. But modern analysis and technology has made it possible to thoroughly investigate the damage that induced hydraulic fracturing can do. A socially irresponsible endeavor, many people feel that they have a duty and responsibility to stop drilling companies in this enterprise for the good of the environment and the people. 

YESSSSSSSSSSS. Yoko and Lennon in Pennsylvania spreading knowledge about fracking.

More Here

The Interior Department will issue revised rules on the use of hydraulic fracturing to drill for oil and gas on public lands

Source, NYTimes Here.  


"The Interior Department will issue revised rules on the use of hydraulic fracturing to drill for oil and gas on public lands, officials said Friday. The rules will replace a proposal released last May that was opposed by oil companies and state officials, who said they conflict with regulations in use on private lands and will add cost to drilling operations. Details of the revised proposal were not disclosed, but an Interior Department official said it would require disclosure of chemicals used in the process, control of methane emissions and careful management of drilling wastewater."

Members of the European Parliament demonstrating against fracking in Strasbourg on 21st Nov 2012

Members of the European Parliament demonstrating against fracking in Strasbourg on 21st Nov 2012. 

Yes!!!

Trailer Park Evicted to Make Room for Fracking

32 Families in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania are losing their homes due to fracking. This was caused by the approval of three natural gas projects in PA. The removal of these families from their homes was considered an "added benefit" of the project as these homes were located in a flood plain.

The complete article can be found here:

A call to action by Mark Ruffalo

Mark Ruffalo PSA - Don't Frack OH - June 17, 2012

Mark Ruffalo's call to action: by Anthony Marchesi of Manthony Productions 

A quote by Duncan Meisel "Frackers have lobbyists, we have a Hulk" :)

Regional News Network TV: Special Report on Fracking

On Friday, May 18th at 6pm Regional News Network (RNN) TV will be airing a special report on fracking. 

This follow-up piece will include interviews with Deborah Rogers, Connecticut State Senator Greg Ball and New Yorkers Against Fracking activist, David Braun. 

Be sure to tune in to RNN TV, Fios1 LI or Fios1 NJ.

Additional fracking specials and information about the upcoming report can be found here. 

VERMONT BANS FRACKING.

Governor Peter Shumlin signed a bill preventing the extraction of natural gas making Vermont the first state in the nation to ban hydraulic fracturing. 

This law also prevents the importation and storage of the wastewater that results from fracking. 

"This is a big deal," Gov. Peter Shumlin said Wednesday. "This bill will ensure that we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy."

Shumlin also noted that although it is not definite whether or not there is natural gas in Vermont, it is better to be precautionary when dealing with the future of drinking water. 

According to Fox News, the American Petrolium Institute contact Shumlin prior to signing the bill  stating that it could be subject to constitutional challenge.

Anti-fracking activists are ready for this challenge. After the sold out New Yorkers Against Fracking concert in Albany on Tuesday that included superstars such as Mark Ruffalo, Natalie Merchant, Citizen Cope and Melissa Leo, it became more evident than ever that there is a massive and powerful coalition fighting this cause that is not going anywhere. 

For more information on the new law banning hydraulic fracturing in Vermont: here. 

Boone Pickens Pulls Out!

Boone Pickens has sold his entire $13 million dollar stake in Chesapeake Energy because he is worried about the collapsing price of natural gas which has gone below $2 in the past few months.


Pickens was unhappy with the actions of Aubrey McClendon, a long time friend, who was trading natural-gas derivatives while simultaneously upholding the position as CEO of Chesapeake. Pickens also claimed that McClendon was spending more money than he was making, something he has done for years now. When this was revealed, McClendon was "stripped of his role as chairman and forced to terminate his well participation agreement early." 

What does this mean? Boone Picken's, who manages a $140 million equity fund as part of his investment firm BP Capital lost about 9% of his equity portfolio. This could also mean that future investors would become less likely to put their money into Chesapeake Energy knowing that a long time friend (and most likely confidant) of the company has pulled out. 


Can we call this a win for the movement? I would. 


Find the complete article here

Lauren Singer of Students Against fracking was quoted in an article on fracking in the NYU Local by Melissa Cronin 

"Fracking Update: The Future Of New York’s Water"

"Last Friday, the Obama administration announced a new ordinance stating that oil and gas companies will have to disclose the chemicals they use when hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—on public lands. While this seems like a big victory for environmental groups concerned with water supply contamination, the announcement came with a sobering qualifier—drilling companies will only have to disclose the chemical names after they’ve drilled.

Environmental groups have been campaigning furiously for years against large natural gas companies that are eyeing land in upstate New York to gain access to the Marcellus Shale, a huge reserve of natural gas lying thousands of feet under New York and other areas of the East Coast. 

Hydraulic fracturing involves shooting high-pressure streams of water, sand, and toxic chemicals into the ground to get at natural gas pockets 8,000 feet below the surface. But this mixture can seep into and contaminate the groundwater, potentially causing huge problems for the local water supply.

This particular shale reserve is the focus of both gas companies and activists, as controversy swirls around the legality of drilling in New York. Many activists look to an ongoing dispute with Pennsylvania landowners, which has been scrutinized in depth by The New York Times, whose land has been notoriously usurped by gas company “landmen.” These property-seeking gas company representatives often take advantage of small landowners, withholding information and tying landowners to unfairly binding contracts that often lead to pollution and contamination of their property.

Yet activist groups in New York are hoping to stave off the issues now facing Pennsylvania landowners. Many small groups have pushed back against what they see is aggression from gas companies—especially after reports that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo would end the state’s ban on the drilling technique.

“Governor Cuomo initially made a comment that seemed to imply that fracking is going to be approved on a state government level, similar to Pennsylvania,” said Frankie F., lead researcher for NoFracking.com, an activism and research organization. “It was made at a time when there was not widespread awareness of the problems related to fracking in New York State.”

Frankie and other anti-fracking organizations have faith that small environmental groups will have a substantial effect on drilling legislation and hydraulic fracturing regulations.

“I think that small organizations have been playing crucial roles in this for a long time, most substantially in a grassroots way,” Frankie said. “It’s small groups doing whatever they can to increase the conversation in their local communities.”

The anti-fracking group’s fears may not be off the mark, too. We’ve covered in depth the battle in Dryden, a small town in New York, whose town board ruled last year against a drilling company that was seeking resident’s land for access to gas reserves underneath it. The ruling prohibited drilling for natural gas in the area last August, which was seen as a huge victory for environmentalists and the New York watershed. The law runs contrary to a state regulation that would permit drilling for oil and gas reserves in New York. But according to a Bush/Cheney energy bill in 2005 referred to as the Halliburton Loophole, energy companies aren’t bound to disclose the chemicals they use for fracking.

The chemical disclosure problem has been at the forefront of residents’ and activists’ complaints against drilling companies. Many reputable sources, most notably Propublica, have reported several dangerous chemicals involved in the hydraulic fracturing process, including diesel, methanol (found in antifreeze), sodium hydroxide (lye), and Naphthalene (a toxic chemical found in mothballs).

Lauren Singer, a politics and environmental studies rising senior who was president of Oxfam this year, cautioned against the perils of fracking in New York state.

“Many studies show that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing can contaminate drinking water and the impacts of this happening in New York State would be catastrophic,” Singer said.

When asked for comment, the biggest gas companies with a stake in New York land refused to weigh in. But National Fuel, one of the biggest stakeholders in the Marcellus Shale gas reserve, has said on their website that while natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is environmentally safer and less harmful than sources derived from coal or oil. “Of the major sources of energy in the United States, natural gas is the cleanest, most efficient, cost effective, and abundant, producing less pollution and fewer greenhouse gasses than its counterparts,” National Fuel said on its site.

And others have contended that natural gas drilling in New York State could create jobs and stimulate a lagging economy. Yet environmental groups warn that the jobs created aren’t worth the harm to the ecosystem and groundwater that hydrofracking poses.

“In terms of risks to New York City, it’s all about the water supply,” said Frankie of NoFracking.com. “New York City has one of the oldest unfiltered drinking water supplies, and this technique would allow the New York aquifers to contaminate the city’s water supply.”

Singer agreed, stressing the need for powerful lawmaking in moving forward.

“I believe that it is time for our legislators to realize the potential of renewable energy sources and work towards creating a clean energy future before we destroy the resource that none of us can live without–water.”"