Fracking the Capitol

Fracking the Capitol

   The news that mineral and other exploration would be allowed in the largest federal forest in the East, the George Washington National Forest, was a bit shocking.  And while it's intimidating to delve through over 500 pages of the Environmental Impact Study, one area highlighted was the possible introduction of fracking and oil exploration in the park.

   Fracking is a complex and complicated issue, at once giving those of us in the United States a semblance of energy independence but also hiding exactly what is going on in the process. This exemption was lightly labeled the Halliburton Loophole, the resounding successful measure passed by former Halliburton executive and former vice-President of the U.S., Dick Cheney.  With this law, exploration companies are exempt from disclosing what's in their pressurized fluid but also from what may happen should something go wrong.  But I'm getting ahead of myself...

   First off, a caveat...again, this is a blog and is nowhere near able to properly explain or keep up with subject of fracking.  But here's how Wiki describes what's involved: Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a process used to extract oil and natural gas.  The process to extract oil and natural gas begins with thousands of gallons of water, mixed with a slurry of chemicals, some of which are undisclosed.  This liquid mixture is then forced into well casings under high pressure, and then is horizontally injected into bedrock to create cracks or fissures.  The forced change in geologic structure allows gas molecules to escape, therefore allowing the industry to harvest natural gas.  Hydraulic fracturing has changed the energy scene as a result of many technological advances.  Fracking uses both historically-known vertical and horizontal drilling techniques which are used in tandem to extract oil and gas.  This process can occur at depths over 10,000 feet deep.  The primary product of hydraulic fracturing is natural gas which consists mostly of methane.  The Clean Water Act is a result of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which was passed to ultimately eliminate pollution discharge into any body of water in the United States.   One of the major mechanisms for implementing this statute was to create a permitting process for all discharging methods that involved dumping pollutants into streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, or creeks.  Then, in 1987, congress amended the act, requiring the EPA to develop a permitting program for storm water runoff, but the exploration, production, and processing of oil and gas exploration was exempt.  And as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, also known as the "Halliburton Loophole," these exemptions were once again expanded; therefore now including exemptions for waste water from gas and oil construction activi ties which includes "oil and gas exploration, production, process, or treatment operations and transmission facilities" as part of the definition of construction activities.

   The possibility of damaging a water table, one used by large populations of both humans and animals, is already both recognized and contested.  One study by Duke University in 2011 found methane levels in drinking waters near dozens of fracking sites were 17 times higher than normal, a charge recently disputed in a followup story in the NY Times, leading to the Times story itself being countered by the followup film by Josh Fox, Gasland II.

   What's interesting about the recent move by the U.S. government to open the national forest to such exploration and possible fracking (admittedly, something that is likely years away) was its own study of such water contamination in its Enviromental Impact Statement.  Here's a small portion of that report:  Land application of contaminated flowback water and solids have been known to sterilize soils and kill forest plots.  At the very least, flowback water is known to contain high levels of chloride; chlorides have a number of biological and nonbiological effects.  Chloride ions pass readily through soil and will eventually enter surface water.  Because chloride moves through soil at the same rate as water it shares the same hydrologic cycle as water.  This means chloride deposited on soil's surface can also enter ground water (Environment Canada 2001).  Sodium chloride is inhibiting to soil bacteria at about 50 mg/l.  High concentrations of chloride will damage or kill leaves or buds when delivered as a spray.  Concentrations first will affect sensitive vegetation and trees.  High enough concentrations will sterilize soil and prohibit any growth (Siegal 2007).  Millions of gallons of contaminated flowback water can remain in the ground during and after production.  Extra steel and concrete casing is required in wells to protect groundwater; however, corrosive agents used in slickwater frac could erode casings and contaminate entire aquifers.  Many of these shale deposits are adjacent to limestone geology, thus residual frac water under pressure could find its way into groundwater supplies.  Fuel oil, surfactants, and biocides are also used in slickwater frac and this gelatinous mixture has the potential to fill fissures underground and create pollution issues.  Although it is surmised that these compounds comprise only a small fraction of the fracturing fluid, it becomes additive when millions of gallons of water are pumped into the ground.  This could add up to hundreds of pounds of chemicals over the production life of a well...Concentrated solids, contaminated with radioactive waste (i.e. radium) are often extracted from the ground after being used to fracture the shale.  Some frac water in New York State exceeded the EPA safety standards
for radioactivity.  However, more study is needed to determine the potential impacts of radioactive materials on aquatic organisms (Sumi 2008; Rabb 2010).

   All of this was enough for Scientific American to call for a pause to institute some precautions before extensive fracking continues, this from an article back in 2011:  Even the incomplete data we now have suggest specific safety measures.   First, the weakest link in preventing groundwater contamination is the concrete casing inside well bores.  Inspection of casings should be legally required.  Second, the toxic fluid that is a major by-product of fracking is routinely stored in open pits, which can overflow or leach into the soil. It should be stored in tanks instead.  Third, gas companies should inject tracers with the fracking fluid so inspectors can easily see whether any of the fluid ends up in the water streaming from residents’ faucets.  Finally, companies or municipalities should have to test aquifers and drinking-water wells for chemicals before drilling begins and then as long as gas extraction continues, so changes in groundwater are obvious.

   People have begun to complain about fracking as it spreads throughout the United States and Europe (the U.K. just announced their plans for increased fracking) and it would seem that at least so far, politicians have been turning a deaf ear.  This recent announcement of the opening of the George Washington National Forest, however, might change things;  the forest runoff leads into and could pollute the Potomac, the only water supply for the Washington, D.C. area...should fracking fluid end up contaminating that source of drinking water, the politicians might just have to listen.