Anderson 1

Derek Anderson PB4

WRTG 2010
Erin Rogers
3/20/2015
Hydraulic Fracturing Literature Review
Hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, is a method of oil or gas extraction
through the fracturing of rock deep in the earth using a composite liquid made of water, sand,
and a proprietary blend of chemicals combined with high pressures (Thompson). The fracturing
of the rock allows the free flow of the oil or gas to flow more freely for extraction. Hydraulic
fracturing is known as a highly controversial topic, with proponents advocating economic
benefits and greater availability of materials to use for energy, and opponents arguing the lack of
research and regulation as well as the environmental concerns and human health concerns.
Hydraulic fracturing is known as one of the key method of extracting unconventional oil
or gas (Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas). This means that hydraulic fracturing is good at
recovering gas or oil that otherwise would be economically unfeasible to extract and use. The
recoverable resources of shale gas are estimated to be about 208 trillion cubic meters (Golden
Rules for a Golden Age of Gas). Formations of shale gas are much harder to extract however,
due to low permeability compared to usual gas formation. Because of this, methods such as
hydraulic fracturing are required to get to those resources, with hydraulic fracturing being one of
the only economically feasible methods (Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas). Previously
inaccessible resources become available though fracking and at a price that is economical to
many companies, increasing supply or availability to those companies allowing for a price
reduction in their oil or natural gas. This presents stability in the market for consumers as the

Anderson 2
resources will stay plentiful compared to if they only came through conventional methods of
extraction. According to Trafigura Beheer BV, the third largest trader of crude oil, because of the
easy access to inexpensive shale oil U.S based refineries have gained a competitive edge, and are
able to sell at a much better price in comparison to other countries, even saying growth in U.S.
shale production has turned the distillates market on its head (Yep). Fracking has been claimed
to be crucial to global economic stability, and that the economic benefits outweigh the
environmental risks (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder). According to Engelder, modern
hydraulic fracturing is very different from what is used to be, in that it much more developed and
much safer, and the process occurs naturally in the earth as well. High pressure magma, water,
petroleum and gases can crack rock, which is much the same process as fracking. According to
Ingraffea, an engineering professor at Cornell University and an expert on fracking, however, the
current economic boom over fracking will soon pop like a bubble. Because shale-gas wells
decline much faster than conventional gas wells, they stop being as productive much faster, and
an incredibly large amount of well drilling and fracking would need to be done in order to meet
projections such as the Department of Energys estimate that 45% of U.S. gas supply to come
from shale gas by 2035 (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder). David Hughes, a geoscientist with 30
years experience with the Canadian Geological Survey, reported that forecasts are likely
exaggerated, perhaps greatly. It has even been estimated by the US Geological Survey that the
shale formation predicted to hold so much gas has been overestimated in size by the Department
of Energy by five-fold (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder). Reports by the American Petroleum
Institute however suggest that fracking could generate almost 300,000 new jobs, more than $6
billion in tax revenue, and nearly $25 billion in value added to the economy by 2020 (Mitka).
Clear differences in estimation are made from different sources about the economic impact.

Anderson 3
Environmental concerns over water use and water contamination are prevalent, as
millions of gallons of water are required to stimulate a well. Engelder says in areas fracking is
done rainfall is stockpiled during the wet season and is used over the course of the year during
drier months, making water use a non-concern. Water contamination, such as that of groundwater
is also a concern; however the Ground Water Protection Council, a nonprofit national
association, has found no case in which the injected fluid from fracking has contaminated
groundwater from below. Water cannot flow upwards large distances in meaningful timescales.
Also, pressure deep in the earth is reduced as gas is extracted which means water would flow
downwards away from groundwater, not upwards toward it. The only water contamination
concern is that of flowback reaching the surface and leaking into surface water, however
wellheads and holding tanks are made for this purpose and failure of these are by human error
which does happen and is noted by Engelder to be an unpredictable risk with which society
lives (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder). Risks over direct water contamination with fracking
fluid are claimed to be impossible except in certain rare cases of surface contamination directly
from the top of the well. Water usage is claimed to be minimal as rainfall is stockpiled by the
fracking operation and used throughout the dry season.
Testing at many drinking wells in the area around fracking operations show that it is
usually not the fracking fluids that contaminate drinking water, rather it is methane that is
buoyant enough to seep upwards through the ground. Methane is sometimes found inside of
drinking wells in the area of fracking before fracking operations ever occur, however fracking
may encourage more methane to seep into these drinking wells making the water non-potable, or
unsafe to drink (Mooney). The reasons methane seeps into these wells through fracking can be
many. In any fracking operation, the well must pass by groundwater to get deep enough to access

Anderson 4
the shale. For the most part contamination is prevented through the use of cementing the path the
well takes downwards, preventing any contamination on the way down. Problems with
cementing have been called the obvious weak link according to Anthony Gorody, a
hydrogeologist. If cementing has not been done well enough, contamination will occur. While
the industry has been hard at work improving its methods for cementing, it may not be fixable.
Ingraffea says A significant percentage of cement jobs will fail. It will always be that way. It
just goes with the territory. (Mooney) In the case of a cementing failure chemicals will also seep
into drinking water, however even if the cementing is done correctly and does not fail, methane
may still seep into ground water (Mooney). In some area where fracking takes place there are
many unknown cracks or faults in the ground. Cracking due to fracking may end up joining with
preexisting unknown cracks and allow methane to seep upwards (Mooney). So while the risk of
water being contaminated with fracking fluids is low, significant methane contamination does
present a meaningful concern as while methane is not toxic by nature it is still very flammable,
and once the contaminated water reaches air methane separates from the water and can fill
structures. If any match is struck or spark is made the methane could ignite and explode.
However methane is also naturally occurring in many enclosed drinking wells, and according to
Engelder, regulators in areas in which methane occurs in those wells have recommended that
structures be well ventilated anyway (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder).
Environmental concerns are also over the leakage of methane into the air during fracking
operations. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, much more potent than common carbon dioxide
emissions (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder). Each fracking well, as does every well, does lose a
percentage of the gas through extraction to the atmosphere. It has been estimated that 3.6-7.9%
of the lifetime production of a shale gas well (compared with 1.7-6% for conventional gas wells)

Anderson 5
is vented or leaked to the atmosphere from the well head, pipelines and storage facilities.
(Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder) Over long time scales however the influence of methane is
lessened because methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide. However
the footprint of methane over a smaller time scale is comparable to that of resources such as oil
or coal (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder). Proponents such as Engelder however say that these
emissions can be reduced by flaring the methane or captured with more steps taken by the
industry (Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder). Climate change may also be expedited with the use
of the new source of fossil fuel in addition to previous sources leading to an increase in
cumulative global greenhouse-gas emissions (Kovats, Depledge and Haines). Methane while a
significant greenhouse gas has been dismissed as a short term one despite its footprint being
similar to that of oil or coal. Emissions resulting directly from fracking operations are higher
than those of conventional wells, but it is claimed that those emissions can be reduced with
active methane flaring or captured with more steps taken by industry.
Fracking can also influence the environment through increased seismic activity. Fracking
regularly induces earthquakes at low levels of magnitude, known as micro earthquakes, with
magnitudes below 2 (Ellsworth). Fracking itself poses a low risk as these earthquakes pose no
concern of damage as they are just too weak. The storing of liquid in the earth however appears
to be an issue, as preexisting faults can be weakened by elevating the pressure. One such case
may have produced a magnitude 5.6 event in central Oklahoma that destroyed 14 homes and
injured two people (Ellsworth). The fracking industry there had not been proved to be at fault,
but had been suspected (Walsh). Due to the low occurrence of the earthquakes the topic has not
been studied extensively.

Anderson 6
Chemicals used in fracking operations are a major concern for many. The chemicals used
however are kept secret by companies as they are in a blend developed by the company that the
company does not wish to give away to competition, and each company uses different kinds of
chemicals. Toxicological data for the chemicals that are often injected into wells indicates that
many have adverse effects on health. Some chemicals however need more research as there is no
toxicological data for them (Kovats, Depledge and Haines). In practice, no one knows outside of
the company what substances and the levels of those substances people around fracking
operations are exposed to, and the health risks that those chemicals may pose (Thompson).
Research and data on the health effects is mostly missing in part because of the variety of
chemicals and the different chemicals used in each region or operation. Madelon Finkel, an
epidemiologist at the Weill Cornell Medical College says There really is nothing out there in
terms of well-designed epidemiological studies (Thompson). Some chemicals for which there is
research into had many adverse health effects such as skin eye, and sensory organ damage;
respiratory distress such as asthma; gastrointestinal tract and liver disease; brain and nervous
system harms; cancers; and negative reproductive effects (Mitka). Once studied, all studies so
far on the chemicals when in contact with humans appear to suggest that they are harmful to
human health. Contact with humans is rare however, except in cases of close proximity contact
to waste water ponds. Once again however the research in cases like these is slim, and this is
mentioned by many such as Bernard D. Goldstein who is quoted by Mitka saying that he would
like industry and governments to slow the embrace of fracking until there is a better
understanding of its potential effects (Mitka).
In conclusion the proponents of fracking advocate the economic benefits and availability
of fossil fuels for energy and opponents of fracking argue that the health risks, environmental

Anderson 7
influences, and problems with current fracking practices. Research throughout the health effects
shows that the chemicals can be harmful, but research on people nearby not in direct contact the
chemicals is slim. Environmental influences are very real and methane contamination could
occur in groundwater and the methanes influence in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas can be
very powerful, but only in a short time scale. The influence of fracking on seismic activity is
known as it produces micro earthquakes that pose low risk, but the influence on storage of waste
water deep in the earth has much more risk.

Anderson 8

Works Cited
Ellsworth, William L. "Injection-Induced Earthquakes." Science (2013): 341.
"Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas." International Agency Special Report. 2012.
Howarth, Robert W, Anthony Ingraffea and Terry Engelder. "Natural gas: Should
fracking stop?" Nature (2011): 271-275.
Kovats, Sari, et al. "The health implications of fracking." The Lancet (2014): 757758.
Mitka, Mike. "Rigorous Evidence Slim for Determining Health Risks from Natural Gas
Fracking." JAMA (2012): 2135-2136.
Mooney, Chris. "The Truth about Fracking." Scientific American (2011): 80-85.
Thompson, Helen. "Fracking boom spurs environmental audit." Nature (2012): 556557.
Walsh, Bryan. Did Fracking Help Cause Oklahoma Earthquakes. 8 November 2011.
29 March 2015 <http://science.time.com/2011/11/08/did-fracking-help-causeoklahoma-earthquakes/>.
Yep, Eric. "Asian Refiners Get Squeezed by U.S. Engergy Boom." The Wall Stree
Journal 1 Jan 2014.