Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docx

Last Updated: October 31, 2011
Hydrofracking: Is hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, a safe
way to extract natural gas?
Pro/Con Article Media Editorials News
Page Tools Highlighting
FULL ARTICLE
Introduction
Background
Supporters Argue
Opponents Argue
Conclusion
Chronology
By the Numbers
Spotlights
Discussion Questions
Bibliography
Further Resources
Introduction
SUPPORTERS ARGUE
There is no proven case of hydrofracking contaminating
drinking water, and the process is perfectly safe. Natural gas
can revive local economies, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign
oil, and provide a cleaner-burning fossil fuel. Further regulation
is unnecessary and will only prevent an opportunity for the
United States to develop an alternative energy source and create
jobs.
OPPONENTS ARGUE
The chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and pose a danger
to public health if they contaminate drinking water reserves or
leak out of wells. Oil and gas companies are not being honest
with the public about the dangers of hydrofracking, and the
federal government should apply much stricter, nationwide
regulations to ensure that hydrofracking does not cause

widespread health problems that could plague the public for
generations.
Issues and Controversies: Hydrofracking Workers
Workers at a natural gas well site in Burlington, Pennsylvania,
in April 2010 prepare a drill to begin the process of hydraulic
fracturing, or hydrofracking.
AP Photo/Ralph Wilson
Many observers have hailed natural gas as a solution to several
energy problems facing the U.S. Utilizing the country's ample
domestic supply of the resource, many have said, could greatly
decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and possibly drive
energy prices down. Furthermore, natural gas produces much
less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, about half as much
as coal, making it the cleanest burning fossil fuel available.
Energy experts have also touted natural gas as a cheap
alternative to renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar
energy, until engineers devise a way to make renewable energy
more cost efficient. According to the Department of Energy,
natural gas already produces about one-fifth of the nation's
electricity, a proportion that may increase as energy firms tap
more domestic reserves of natural gas.
The Marcellus Shale, a 95,000-square-mile geologic formation
deep underground that stretches from West Virginia through
Pennsylvania to upstate New York, is estimated to contain as
much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In order to access
the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale and other shale
formations, however, energy companies have to employ a
controversial procedure called hydraulic fracturing—also known
as "hydrofracking" or simply "fracking." Hydrofracking is a
technique that releases natural gas by pumping millions of
gallons of water, laced with sand and chemicals, thousands of
feet underground to blast open, or fracture, shale formations,
freeing the gas. [See Today's Science: Natural Gas—Bridge to
the Future?]

Some have said that hydrofracking entails risks that may
outweigh the benefits of natural gas extraction. Discover
magazine journalist Linda Marsa writes, "Fracking has already
drawn considerable scrutiny from environmental groups,
unhappy homeowners, and teams of lawyers who blame the
drilling method for polluting pristine rivers, turning bucolic
farmlands into noisy industrial zones, and leaking enough
methane to make ordinary tap water as flammable as lighter
fluid." Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
found in 2004 that hydrofracking posed "little or no threat to
underground sources of drinking water," the agency launched
another, more extensive study into hydrofracking in 2010 in
response to public concern, with a report expected by the end of
2012.
The state governments of New Jersey, New York and
Pennsylvania are currently debating allowing hydrofracking
sites on the Marcellus Shale near the Delaware River watershed,
which provides drinking water to millions of residents in the
region. Environmental and other advocacy groups have
petitioned to stop the spread of hydrofracking in the area, yet
Pennsylvania alone has already licensed more than 3,300
permits for natural gas wells on the Marcellus Shale, and
thousands of similar wells are active on other shale beds across
the U.S., from Colorado to Louisiana.
Is hydrofracking safe? Is the procedure harmful to the
environment and public health or a necessary step toward
ending U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and reducing
the nation's carbon emissions? Should the federal government
be more involved in regulating hydrofracking?
Supporters of hydrofracking argue that there is no proven case
of hydrofracking ever contaminating drinking water, and they
say that claims to the contrary amount to fear-mongering

sensationalism. Because the process occurs so deep
underground, critics contend, it is nearly impossible for
fracking fluid to migrate upward far enough to reach water
supplies. Furthermore, supporters note, hydrofracking is
essential to reaching the country's abundant natural gas
resources, which can help solve energy shortage problems and
reduce the cost of electricity. The hydrofracking industry will
also create thousands of jobs, helping struggling local
economies, supporters say.
Critics of hydrofracking argue that, despite industry claims, the
procedure can potentially contaminate drinking water with toxic
chemicals and pollute surrounding areas. The use of chemicals
in the hydrofracking process and the energy needed to operate
the trucks and drills, critics say, offset the low carbon emissions
from the burning of natural gas, making it no better than oil or
coal. Furthermore, opponents contend, pollutants left behind at
hydrofracking drilling sites could seep out from closed pipes
and wells, posing a danger to public health for generations.
Therefore, critics say, the federal government must step in to
institute stricter regulations than the states have already
implemented.
Technological Advances Make Hydrofracking More Effective
and Controversial
Natural gas resources in shale rock result from hundreds of
millions of years of geologic processes. The Marcellus Shale,
for instance, is estimated to have been formed 400 million years
ago when compressed landmasses created the Appalachian and
Catskill Mountains. The pressure from the compression formed
gaseous hydrocarbons in pockets in shale rock underground,
where natural gas now resides.
Hydrofracking in its basic form has existed since the 1940s,
when Houston, Texas–based energy company the Halliburton

Corporation first used massive amounts of hydraulic pressure
and vertical drills to release gas and oil from sandstone
thousands of feet below ground. Shale, however, is wider and
shallower than sandstone, making the vertical drilling process
inefficient because it draws gas from too small a surface area.
In the 1990s, new technology allowed drills to turn sideways,
enabling them to bore horizontally through shale, thereby
accessing more reservoirs of gas. Using one drilling site,
companies can create bores of tunnels spreading outward,
accessing hundreds of acres of shale.
Such advances in hydrofracking technology have opened up
previously unreachable natural gas resources. According to the
Congressional Research Service, production of shale gas
increased in the U.S. in 2009 by 47%, turning the U.S. from a
"net importer to potentially a net exporter." Natural gas
provides about 25% of total U.S. energy consumption,
according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Although it is used by many sectors of the economy, natural gas
has been credited with driving down heating prices particularly
for residential consumers, who can use the fuel to heat their
homes and water efficiently.
But expanded natural gas drilling has also aggravated
environmental concerns stemming from hydrofracking. The
most frequently expressed concern regarding hydrofracking is
the potential contamination of drinking water. Companies must
use massive amounts of fracturing fluid (ranging from 2 million
to 10 million gallons) to crack open rock. Although the fluid is
mostly water, companies add in lubricating chemicals so that
the mixture can flow easily through pipes and also mix in sand
to keep fissures in the shale propped open so gas can be sucked
out. The chemicals in the mixture have generated the greatest
amount of public concern.
When companies drill natural gas wells, they generally insulate

pipes with steel and cement barriers to prevent the mixture from
seeping out and contaminating potable aquifers (drinking water
sources) in the area. Because of the huge amount of pressure
generated by pumping millions of gallons of water underground,
it is essential that those barriers be sturdy, so companies often
perform stress tests before hydrofracking and continually
monitor the structures for cracks, corrosion or other potential
problems.
Companies, however, must also retrieve fracking fluid from
underground, in a process known as flowback, and dispose of it,
adding to the possible points during the hydrofracking process
when chemicals in the fluid may contaminate areas surrounding
the drill. Disposal procedures vary from site to site—sometimes
the fluid is hauled away in trucks and other times it is disposed
of in "evaporation pits." Still other well operators, according
the New York Times, have sold their wastewater to local
communities, which use the highly salty mix to de-ice roads in
the winter.
Environmental organizations and public advocacy groups have
long called on energy companies to release the full list of
chemicals they use in fracturing fluid. Oil and gas companies
have resisted such calls, citing proprietary concerns. As a
result, a definite link between fracturing fluid and
environmental contamination has been impossible to prove,
scientists say, because chemicals found in water or the air
cannot be conclusively matched with chemicals used in the
hydrofracking process. According to a 2008 report by the
investigative journalism nonprofit group ProPublica, "It is
difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of each
contamination…because the precise nature and concentrations
of the chemicals used by the industry are considered trade
secrets…mak[ing] it impossible to vouch for the safety of the
drilling process or precisely track its effects."

In 2001, for example, a household drinking water well near a
hydrofracking site in Dry Hollow, Colorado, exploded. State
inspectors subsequently found in the well high amounts of
methane, a gas that is one of the main components of natural
gas and can be explosive when present in highly dense
concentrations, but, according to ProPublica, inspectors "did not
test fracking fluids…because they didn't know what to test for."
The family who used the well, the Amoses, was assured their
drinking water was safe, but several years later Laura Amos
developed a rare adrenal tumor and alleged that chemicals in
her drinking water were to blame. Amos later accepted a
multimillion-dollar settlement from the drilling company,
Encana, but the company also maintained hydrofracking was not
responsible for any contamination that occurred. Other districts
near drilling sites have reported a large number of livestock
stillbirths or other health problems among farm animals.
More recently, some states have made the disclosure of all
chemicals in fracking fluid mandatory. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, for example, recently
released a list of the more than 590 chemicals pumped deep
underground to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale in
the state. Some of those chemicals are known to be carcinogenic
(cancer-causing). [See Prompted by Hydrofracking Concerns,
States Adopt Chemical Disclosure Agreements (sidebar)]
In addition to the potential for contaminated drinking water
aquifers due to faulty well construction, and for contamination
as a result of the flowback process or improper waste disposal,
other concerns have been raised surrounding air pollution, both
from the massive number of trucks used to service drill sites
and other greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the
hydrofracking process.
Issues and Controversies: How Hydrofracking Works
(illustration)

Observers Call for Federal Oversight of Hydrofracking
Hydrofracking is largely regulated by state agencies, meaning
that little uniform regulation exists nationwide. In general, state
oversight has not increased in accordance with expanding
hydrofracking activity. According to ProPublica, the number of
hydrofracking wells drilled has increased by 42% since 2003,
while state regulation enforcement staff has increased by only
9%.
Some observers have called for closer federal oversight of the
industry, noting that hydrofracking activity enjoys exemptions
from several federal laws aimed at protecting air quality and
drinking water supplies. In 2005, Congress passed a sweeping
energy bill that exempted oil and gas companies engaging in
hydrofracking from complying with the Safe Drinking Water
Act, a 1974 law aimed at protecting water in rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, springs and groundwater wells. The companies had
argued that the procedure was safe, and complying with the
regulations would be too costly. According to ProPublica, gas
drillers are also exempt from the 1972 Clean Water Act, which
seeks to curb pollutants at construction sites, and from the
Clean Air Act, a 1970 law regulating industrial emissions.
In June 2009, Representatives Diana DeGette (D, Colorado),
Maurice Hinchey (D, New York) and Jared Polis (D, Colorado)
introduced the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of
Chemicals Act, or the FRAC Act, to Congress. The bill would
require oil and gas companies to disclose all chemicals used in
the fracking process and would give the EPA authority to
regulate the drilling process. The bill has failed several times,
but representatives introduced it again in 2011.
In March 2011, President Obama (D) announced his "Blueprint
for a Secure Energy Future," which included proposals for
studying the safety of hydrofracking. In May, Energy Secretary

Stephen Chu named members to a committee charged with
providing recommendations for increasing the safety and
minimizing the environmental impact of hydrofracking.
In August, the panel, headed by John Deutch, the former Energy
Department director of energy research, released an interim
report containing recommendations, although the final report
was not due until November. The report urged instituting
stricter regulations, warning that "if effective environmental
action is not taken today, the potential environmental
consequences will grow to a point that the country will be faced
(with) a more serious problem." The report supported some
regulations that have already been adopted by a few states, such
as the mandatory disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking
process, and also called for further regulations, such as
requiring drilling companies to monitor air quality near drilling
sites and restrict the emission of methane. [See Panel Calls for
Stricter Regulation of Hydrofracking (sidebar)]
In June, the EPA announced it would investigate claims that
hydrofracking contaminates water wells, as well as other safety
issues. A 2004 study by the agency that had approved
hydrofracking had not considered drilling in shale, or the new
practice of drilling horizontally. Furthermore, the new study
aims to research the effects of every stage of the hydrofracking
process, from the acquisition of water and its mixing with
chemicals through the actual fracturing and flowback processes,
as well as waste disposal. Industry representatives and some
legislators representing drilling states in Congress, however,
have urged the EPA to narrow its study. State legislatures have
also considered hydrofracking measures. In Maryland, for
example, representatives considered a bill that would require
gas companies leasing drills in Maryland to fund a state study
on the short- and long-term effects of hydrofracking. The bill
did not pass.

New York State, in particular, has been a battleground over
hydrofracking, as some observers have urged the state
government to support drilling that, they say, has boosted the
economy in nearby Pennsylvania, while others urge caution over
environmental concerns. In July 2011, New York Governor
Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a set of regulations to govern
proposed drill sites in upstate New York. Considered by
observers to be the strictest in the country, the guidelines were
geared toward protecting the drinking water reservoirs that
serve New York City's population through a series of aging
tunnels that originate in reservoirs upstate. The regulations
prohibited drilling wells within 4,000 feet of watersheds that
feed drinking reservoirs. Furthermore, the state regulations
required all hydrofracking piping to be encased within three
layers of steel and concrete to prevent possible leaking.
Cuomo's regulations were considered the first step toward
lifting a de facto moratorium on new hydrofracking in the state.
The Public Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with New
York State's Business Council, released a study that month
estimating that more than a quarter million private-sector jobs
would be created if New York permitted 2,000 requested
drilling sites. Others, however, still urged caution. In August,
New York State comptroller Thomas DiNapoli proposed
legislation that would create a public fund, paid for by the
drilling companies, in the case of a hydrofracking accident or
contamination that would require costly cleanup. In October,
the state's Department of Environmental Conservation released
regulations calling for just a 1,000-foot buffer zone, which were
criticized by some state legislators as inadequate to protect
residents' drinking water supplies.
Issues and Controversies: U.S. Natural Gas Shales in the Lower
48 States (map)
Supporters Argue: Hydrofracking Safe, Good for Economy

Supporters of hydrofracking argue that procuring natural gas
from domestic sources is essential to addressing the U.S.'s
uncertain energy future. Paul Anastas, the assistant
administrator for research and development at the EPA,
testified, "Produced responsibly, natural gas has the potential to
reduce green house gas emissions, stabilize energy prices, and
provide greater certainty about the future energy reserves."
Supporters of hydrofracking contend that it is a perfectly safe
process with no history of contaminating water sources. Rex
Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, told the Senate,
"There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in
the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one,
reported case of freshwater aquifer having ever been
contaminated from hydraulic fracturing."
Natural gas offers the U.S. many benefits, supporters insist,
including increased independence from foreign oil and an
opportunity for the country and individual families to save on
energy costs. David Burnett, the director of technology at the
Global Petroleum Research Institute at Texas A&M University
in College Station, said, "We've got terrific natural gas
resources. Our country is going broke, but the public refuses to
realize how much money they're spending on imported energy."
Furthermore, natural gas could produce fewer carbon emissions,
one of the main factors that scientists consider responsible for
global warming, supporters argue. Ernest Moniz, the director of
the Energy Initiative, a project at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Cambridge working to develop affordable and
environmentally friendly energy sources, said, "Natural gas
truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future and could enable very
substantial reductions in carbon emissions—as much as 50
percent by 2050."
Indeed, more than any other energy source, natural gas could

head off a possible energy crisis in the U.S., supporters say.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
The U.S. is in the midst of an energy revolution, and we don't
mean solar panels or wind turbines. A new gusher of natural gas
from shale has the potential to transform U.S. energy
production—that is, unless politicians, greens and the industry
mess it up.… The question for the rest of us is whether we are
serious about domestic energy production. All forms of energy
have risks and environmental costs…. Yet renewables are
nowhere close to supplying enough energy, even with large
subsidies, to maintain America's standard of living.
Supporters of hydrofracking accuse critics of sensationalistic
exaggeration. Referring to the 2010 anti-hydrofracking
documentary Gasland, by Josh Fox, Brad Gill, the executive
director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New
York, said, "A Hollywood actor holding a glass of cloudy water
proves nothing except that fear-mongering and emotion will
always trump science and logic."
Supporters deny that hydrofracking releases dangerous
pollutants or chemicals into the environment. According to the
Wall Street Journal, "The reality is that 99.5% of the fluid
injected into fracture rock is water and sand." Most components
of fracking fluid are completely benign, supporters say.
Because the hydrofracking process takes place so far
underground, the possibility that it could contaminate drinking
water stored much closer to the surface is extremely slim,
supporters say. Michael Economides, a professor of chemical
and biomolecular engineering at the University of Houston in
Texas, testified, "[T]he fracture treatments are [at] well
confined heights, at least a mile below the deepest groundwater.
The chance of propagating a fracture upward into groundwater
is nil. You have a better chance of winning the lottery." It is
physically impossible, supporters say, for fracturing fluid to

migrate upward from that depth.
Hydrofracking has the potential to help an economy plagued by
unemployment, supporters say. According to the Wall Street
Journal, "The shale boom is also reviving economically
suffering parts of the country, while offering a new incentive
for manufacturers to stay in the U.S." In addition to jobs
immediately related to drilling, the hydraulic fracturing boom in
Pennsylvania has also stimulated related industries; for
example, it is revitalizing the steel industry in the state by
providing demand for thousands of feet of steel pipe, according
to supporters. Supporters note that hydrofracking in the
Marcellus Shale has created 72,000 jobs in the past two years
and has led to a 117% growth in hiring for "core-related
industries," according to Pennsylvania's Department of Labor
and Industry. North Dakota, another region that has experienced
a natural gas drilling boom, has the lowest unemployment rate
in the nation, supporters point out.
Hydrofracking should be regulated by the states, not the federal
government, supporters maintain. They assert that state
regulations already in place are more than enough to protect
public health and safety from the potential harms of
hydrofracking. Further EPA regulations, supporters say, could
hurt the industry and the economy. Elizabeth Jones, the chair of
the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates mining and
drilling in the state, said:
If some of the new EPA regulations considered today are
implemented, more than half our oil and natural gas wells could
be eliminated. America's production of domestic energy
resources would diminish by 183,000 barrels of oil per day and
245 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually. The federal
government would lose $4 billion in revenue and the states
would lose $785 million in taxes, not counting the additional
jobs lost.

Opponents Argue: Hydrofracking a Long-Term Danger to Public
Health
Critics of hydrofracking argue that being able to extract
valuable natural gas from the earth is not worth sacrificing
precious supplies of drinking water. An editorial on gas
extraction from the Marcellus Shale in the Post-Star, a
newspaper in Glens Falls, New York, contends, "New York state
simply can't take the risk. There are plenty of places to find
fuel. It's not so easy to find a new water supply for 17 million
people." The editorial also notes that, compared to other
hydrofracking sites in, for example, Texas or Wyoming, "we
have more people concentrated in the area who might be
potentially affected by a mishap."
Indeed, critics say that hydrofracking, because of pollution and
potential accidents, is too dangerous a procedure to carry out in
heavily populated areas. Conrad Volz, a professor at the
Graduate School of Public Health at the University of
Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, testified before the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works during an April
2011 hearing on hydrofracking that the "unregulated siting of
natural gas wells in areas of high population density, and near
schools and critical infrastructure" is unwise. He said,
"Unconventional gas extraction wells are highly industrialized
operations that have public health preparedness risks of
catastrophic blowout, explosion and fire."
Furthermore, critics dispute the claim, often cited by
hydrofracking supporters, that no proven case of drinking water
contamination has resulted from hydrofracking. According to
the New York Times, a 1987 EPA report on the process
concluded that "hydraulic fracturing fluids or
gel…contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away" in Jackson
County, West Virginia, rendering the water "unusable."
Supporters also contend that similar, much more recent cases

exist but have been excluded from government reports under
pressure from the oil and gas industry. According to the New
York Times "the documented E.P.A. case, which has gone
largely unnoticed for decades, includes evidence that many
industry representatives were aware of it and also fought the
agency's attempts to include other cases in the final study."
Critics also argue that the energy companies urging the public
to approve hydrofracking have repeatedly demonstrated that
they should not be trusted. The Post-Star asks, "How many
times do we have to listen to large corporations with millions of
dollars at stake tell us that everything is safe before we react
with some skepticism? Aren't they still cleaning up an oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico from a supposedly safe process?"
Critics of hydrofracking note that the process could dislodge
toxic compounds that naturally occur in the shale. Tracy Bank,
a geochemist at the State University of New York in Buffalo,
told Discover magazine, "Shale is a garbage-bucket rock. The
more organically rich the shale is, the more natural gas is
present, but the more other stuff is in there too," such as
radioactive uranium, barium and arsenic. Bank says, "If the goal
of fracking is to extract that organic matter—the natural gas—
then you're mobilizing the uranium as well."
Energy companies engaging in hydrofracking are not taking the
necessary steps to protect the surrounding environment and
communities from the toxic wastewater that results from the
process, critics say. Bank told Discover that the water, which is
sometimes put into disposal wells or run through drinking water
treatment facilities, "needs to be treated like industrial waste."
If water containing such toxic compounds runs into
groundwater, critics note, it could contaminate those water
sources for decades. Short-term regulations are not enough to
control the potential for damage from wells that continue to

ooze wastewater for generations after they have been active
hydrofracking sites. Anthony Ingraffea, a civil and
environmental engineering professor at Cornell University in
Ithaca, New York, told the New York Times, "[A]s the well
ages, the fluids that come up from it become more toxic, and the
state or companies are even less likely to be tracking it." Critics
contend that drilling operators leave as much as a third of the
fluid underground, where it is likely to mingle with
groundwater and migrate to other locations.
Long-standing hydrofracking sites have already shown signs of
hurting surrounding communities, critics say. Marsa writes, "To
comprehend the long-term implications of hydraulic fracturing,
you need to visit the region where gas drilling first boomed"—
the Barnett Shale, which surrounds Fort Worth, Texas, where
hydrofracking began in 2002. Marsa notes, "There are now
about 14,000 gas wells in the area, and it is there that the
environmental fallout of fracking has been most pronounced.
Residents have complained for years of contaminated water,
poor air quality, and unexplained health problems such as
headaches, dizziness, blackouts, and muscle contractions."
Critics also dispute the industry claim that hydrofracking
wastewater and methane cannot migrate through the ground far
enough to contaminate drinking water or groundwater.
Geologist Dennis Coleman told ProPublica that he has observed
methane gas from hydrofracking seep for more than seven
miles, which, according to industry spokespeople, is supposed
to be impossible. He said, "There is no such thing as impossible
in terms of migration. Like everything else in life it comes
down to the probability."
Furthermore, critics contend, the natural gas procured by
hydrofracking is far from the "clean energy" source industry
spokespeople claim it is. Marsa writes:

Health risks aside, natural gas may ultimately prove no cleaner
than America's other abundant domestic fossil fuel, coal.
Cornell University researchers factored in the carbon emissions
over the course of natural gas's life cycle when it is extracted
using hydraulic fracturing—which includes drilling the wells,
erecting the construction sites, building pipelines to transport
the gas, fueling the pumps that force the water underground,
and transporting the wastewater—and concluded that natural gas
is dirtier than coal.
Because of all the risks associated with hydrofracturing, critics
urge the federal government to apply uniform regulations
nationwide. Robert Summers, the secretary of the Maryland
Department of the Environment, said, "We need the federal
government to take an active role in studying, providing the
technical support to states and assisting the states in regulating
activities.… While the states should retain the authority to enact
more stringent requirements, a federal regulatory 'floor' would
ensure at least basic protection of the environment and public
health."
Proposals to Make Hydrofracking Safer
The EPA plans to release its research report on hydrofracking
by the end of 2012 and the results of longer-term studies in
2014. Meanwhile, some energy companies are experimenting
with potentially safer ways of hydrofracking. GasFrac, a
Canadian energy company operating natural gas wells in Texas,
has tested the use of a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a thick
fluid, to break up rock instead of conventional fracturing fluid.
The LPG converts into a gas while underground, making it
easier to recover because it can be sucked out along with the
natural gas in the shale. Industry experts also speculate that
LPG could result in fewer carbon emissions, because it should
require less truck traffic around drilling sites.
If projects to procure natural gas through hydraulic fracturing in

the Marcellus Shale proceed, many observers caution, every
possible safeguard should be applied. John Ubinger, the senior
vice president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, told
the Senate committee that previous energy resource booms in
his state's history, such as those for coal and timber resources,
have levied a "heavy price" on the state in the form of "polluted
waterways, thousands of abandoned mines and oil and gas
wells, decaying infrastructure, and economic devastation caused
by poor planning and a short-sighted thirst for growth." While
development of the Marcellus Shale has the potential to boost
Pennsylvania's economy, Ubinger says, the state should "do
everything possible to create a sustainable, thriving, and
successful Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale economy that does not
leave an environmental burden to future generations." Whether
the energy industry can assuage public anxiety over
hydrofracking in the meantime, however, remains to be seen.
Bibliography
Brady, Jeff. "Energy Panel Wants Answers on Gas 'Fracking.'"
National Public Radio, August 11, 2011, www.npr.org.
"DiNapoli Proposes NY Gas Drilling Protection Fund." Wall
Street Journal, August 9, 2011, online.wsj.com.
"The Facts About Fracking." Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2011,
online.wsj.com.
"Governor Cuomo's Hydrofracking Plan Should Go Forward
Only with Guarantee of a Safe City Water Supply." New York
Daily News, July 9, 2011, www.nydailynews.com.
"Gov't Panel: Fracking Chemicals Should Be Revealed." Wall
Street Journal, August 11, 2011, online.wsj.com.
"Hydrofracking Carries Too Many Unknowns." Post-Star,

February 13, 2011, poststar.com.
"Is Natural Gas Drilling to Blame for Wyoming Town's
Undrinkable Water?" Discover Magazine, September 2, 2010,
blogs.discovermagazine.com.
Kaplan, Thomas. "State Comptroller to Propose a Hydraulic
Fracturing Fund." New York Times, August 8, 2011,
www.nytimes.com.
Kusnetz, Nicholas. "Critics Find Gaps in State Laws to Disclose
Hydrofracking Chemicals." ProPublica, June 20, 2011,
www.propublica.org.
———. "Report for Obama Questions Effectiveness of Gas
Drilling Regulations." ProPublica, August 12, 2011,
www.propublica.org.
Lustgarten, Abrahm. "FRAC Act—Congress Introduces Twin
Bills to Control Drilling and Protect Drinking Water."
ProPublica, June 9, 2009, www.propublica.org.
———. "Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don't Know."
ProPublica, December 31, 2009, www.propublica.org.
Marsa, Linda. "Fracking Nation." Discover, May 2011,
discovermagazine.com.
Ratner, Michael. "Global Natural Gas: A Growing Resource."
Congressional Research Service, December 22, 2010,
opencrs.com.
Urbina, Ian. "Pressure Limits Efforts to Police Drilling for
Gas." New York Times, March 3, 2011, www.nytimes.com.
———. "Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process."

New York Times, March 1, 2011, www.nytimes.com.
Additional Sources
Additional information about hydrofracking can be found in the
following sources:
Andrews, Anthony, et al. Unconventional Gas Shales:
Development, Technology, and Policy Issues. Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2009.
Lustgarten, Abrahm. Hydrofracked? One Man's Mystery Leads
to a Backlash Against Natural Gas Drilling. New York:
ProPublica, 2011.
Contact Information
Information on how to contact organizations that either are
mentioned in the discussion of hydrofracking or can provide
additional information on the subject is listed below:
Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA Ariel Rios Building (AR)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 272-0167
Internet: www.epa.gov
Exxon Mobil
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, Texas 75039
Telephone: (972) 444-1000
Internet: www.exxonmobil.com
Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York
38 Lake Street

Hamburg, N.Y. 14075
Telephone: (716) 202-4688
Internet: www.iogany.org
Keywords
For further information about the ongoing debate over
hydrofracking, search for the following words and terms in
electronic databases and other publications:
Fracking fluid
Horizontal drilling
Hydraulic fracturing
Marcellus Shale
Natural gas
Citation Information MLA Chicago Manual of Style
"Hydrofracking: Is hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, a
safe way to extract natural gas?" Issues & Controversies,
Infobase Learning, 31 Oct. 2011,
http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=2036.
Accessed 7 July 2017.
How to Cite
Record URL
http://contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login?url=http://icof.infobasele
arning.com/recordurl.aspx?wid=18566&ID=2036
Academic Standards
Look up Academic Standards

Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docx

Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docx

Similar to Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docx (18)

More from smile790243

More from smile790243 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docx