Hydrofracking: Bad fracking idea

There is a new environmental concern on the horizon for New York State, and it is something we need to pay attention to. Namely, hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking.

Energy companies use hydrofracking to extract natural gas from the ground. Some may already be familiar with this term, as it has been in the news before.

Last year, actor Mark Ruffalo came to UAlbany to raise awareness about the issue, and it was the subject of heavy criticism in the 2010 documentary Gasland.

Those who criticize hydrofracking cite shocking examples of the environmental harm it causes, while proponents of drilling claim it is completely safe and poses no threat to the environment.

Somewhere between these two extremes lies the truth, based neither in sensationalism or profit-seeking interests, but scientific fact. After one learns the facts, the excitement and outrage gives way to a calm assessment of the reality; that hydrofracking, while theoretically safe, is not practically safe, and is not a good idea for New York.

For those that are not familiar with hydrofracking, a brief explanation is necessary. Hydraulic fracturing is a feat of engineering that allows us to extract natural gas from the deep layer of rock it is trapped in.

First, a well is drilled vertically down thousands feet into the ground, far past the water table, until it approaches the layer of shale rock that contains the gas.

Then, the path of the drill is turned horizontally, and continued through the shale for some distance, so the whole well cavity resembles an upside down bendy straw.

After the well has been drilled, a mixture of water, sand, and interesting toxic chemicals, known as "frac fluid", is pressurized and blasted into the end of the cavity to create fractures within the surrounding rock.

The natural gas, which is trapped in tiny pockets throughout the shale, is allowed to escape through the fractures, and it is brought up to the surface to be collected.

It's very impressive, but a number of issues make it environmentally unsafe. One of the sensational arguments against hydro-fracking is the flammable tap water issue; the claim that fracking causes contamination of the water table, leading to cases where people living near drilling operations are able to hold a lighter to their running water and it will ignite (YouTube it).

While this is true, it should be noted that it is not actually the fracking itself that causes gas to leak into the water table. Rather, it is due to failures in the integrity of the well when it was drilled. Namely: weakness in the concrete casing that lines the well and separates it from the water table and surrounding rock.

That is according to the executive vice president of Southwestern Energy Company, Mark Boling, who came to UAlbany on Wednesday, Oct. 26, to talk about the scientific facts behind hydrofracking.

He says that when the strength of this cement casing is compromised, it allows natural gas to seep into the water table. So while there may not be anything dangerous about the actual fracking, so far companies have been making dangerous mistakes in how they construct their wells. That's one of the reasons we should not allow it to take place in our state.

Another area of concern is the chemical mix that is part of the frac fluid. Companies use hundreds of additives to aid in the job, some of which are known neurotoxins, carcinogens, and irritants.

Many big energy corporations, such as Halliburton, argue that they should not need to disclose what chemicals are in the fluid, on the basis that they are "protecting their trade secrets." We need these corporations to give full disclosure of what chemicals are being used.

Even putting aside the danger, we cannot allow private corporations to think they can withhold information from the public and still go about their aggressive capitalistic orgies. It's a matter of principle.

The lame attempts at contending disclosure have thus far been pitiful and insulting. To allow these corporations to hem and haw their way into a position of public acceptance would be a failure for a transparent democracy.

Mr. Boling spoke about other possible safety concerns. He admits that it is possible for a fracking job to come in contact with a fault line in the rock, triggering a seismic disaster that would lead to contamination of the water table.

He also says that unless wells are properly monitored for decades after their use, it is possible for the concrete casing to deteriorate and allow water table contamination. The whole issue is a can of worms, and the closer you look, the uglier it gets.

There seems to be an almost inexhaustible supply of loose ends and "what ifs" that reveals itself. So many things could go wrong, and all it takes is one. Are we so quick to forget the BP Gulf oil spill disaster? Do we totally ignore the fact that even if something is considered "safe", accidents can happen?

Putting aside the obvious safety concerns, there are indirect aspects of fracking that simply make it undesirable. Natural gas is, in theory, a cleaner source of energy than coal or oil.

But here you need to factor in the tens of thousands of trucks needed to supply fracking sites with the immense volumes of water and chemicals they require. That means a lot more road wear, and a lot more carbon emissions. Not to mention the ugly appearance of fracking sites, and the loud noise they generate, which will have both our eyes and ears sore.

Perhaps it is simply the way we are treating the Earth, and not any tangible danger, that makes me sick to the idea of hydro-fracking.

We are behaving like vicious fossil fuel addicts in desperate search of a fix, abusing the Earth like a junkie abuses his body. Always ready and willing to stab it full of holes and inject dangerous chemicals, as long as it means access to more precious resource; it keeps us going, we need it.