Fracking Benefits Deniers: Closing the Gap on the Three Biggest Arguments Against Fracking

Fracking Benefits Deniers: Closing the Gap on the Three Biggest Arguments Against Fracking

Environmentalists and climate hawks like Bill McKibben, Joe Romm, and many others typically invoke some part of three main arguments against the benefits of fracking: 1) methane leakage from oil and gas systems that reduces or negates climate benefits; 2) water contamination; and 3) negative health effects, presumably mainly through air pollution. There are other possible negative effects with even less of an overall potential impact like radioactive waste, induced seismicity, land disturbance, and increased potential for spills. Relatively speaking, many of those are significantly less than coal in emissions or exposure per energy produced. The increased potential for spills is an exception.

Environmental evaluation and risk assessment is very often a comparison of costs vs. benefits. While there is no doubt there are some environmental ‘costs’ with fracking, it is also rather clear to me and many others that the benefits far outweigh the costs. There is little uncertainty about the benefits of fracking, especially considered relative to coal, which gas is replacing. On the other hand there is considerable uncertainty in the environmental and climate change ‘costs’ of fracking. This uncertainty has been exploited by the anti-fracking community in a very similar way that so-called ‘climate deniers’ and skeptics have exploited uncertainties about the degree of risk in climate change. If one reads warnings about the dangers of fracking the current big three points above are put forth, often in an exaggeratory manner and often based on a very limited pool of biased and some debunked, distorted, or discredited studies. The perceived uncertainty is based on differences in calculated methane emission rates, wording in water contamination claims, and making inconclusive health studies seem conclusive through headlines that influence public perception against the practice.   

Of course, in reality the climate, pollution, consumer energy cost, commercial energy cost, and job creation benefits of fracking are pretty clear cut. Those opposed to fracking often argue that the climate benefits of fracking relative to coal are cancelled out due to fugitive methane emissions. Only a couple of many studies suggest that is even possible. The largely debunked early report by Cornell scientist Robert Howarth and the work of his colleague Anthony Ingrafea, who has done numerous TV and radio interviews, have informed the argument almost single-handedly for anti-frackers. Their study was merely a rough statistical study and was partially based on several incorrect or distorted assumptions and they ended up predicting far more methane leakage than was occurring according to nearly every other study before and after. Field measurements have disproved some of their assumptions. Leak detection, assessment, and repair have advanced in anticipation of federal methane emissions requirements. New system designs can lower leakage rates from compressors, wells, and processing facilities. Even if the new federal methane requirements get scrapped as expected by the new administration, some states already have similar requirements and some are debating about whether to adopt new rules. Since there is some state pressure to decrease methane emissions and many reductions have been implemented by both design and field surveying, there is still interest in maintaining periodic assessment. This would especially be beneficial for monitoring system changes through time. With current detection, automation, and communications technologies data can be collected, delivered, and analyzed in real-time. New more inexpensive mobile multi-component detectors are being developed. Better detection and monitoring over a wide array of areas, fields, plays, and hydrocarbon types, can provide data to evaluate regional changes in emissions. VOCs and other compounds can also be measured and analyzed as well. Howarth and Ingrafea were featured in a recent NPR segment that noted that New York has increased its natural gas use by 18% since 2014 and the state’s carbon emissions and air pollution have dropped because of this. And yet, Ingrafea noted that methane is “not good for anything.” Well it’s good for powering over a third of the American electric grid. It’s good for being the major source of heat for Americans in the form of natural gas and LP gas. It’s good for powering certain forms of manufacturing inexpensively. It’s good for saving Americans significant amounts of money every year over other sources of electricity and heat. It’s good for providing good jobs in producing and processing states. It’s good for sending to other countries to lower their carbon footprints and to keep them from being victims of leverage from other gas-supplying counties like Russia. It’s good for providing ethane as an inexpensive feedstock for plastics. It’s good for providing the other natural gas liquids that are used in myriad ways, some of which help the environment compared to common alternatives. The benefits are many. The benefits are undeniable. And yet those who deny them are given voice on major media outlets.

Like climate change deniers, fracking benefits deniers do not evaluate and inform their views on the full spectrum of facts and studies. Instead, they pick out only the facts and studies that support their view. This is known as ‘confirmation bias.’  In both cases there are different degrees of skeptics. Fracking benefits skeptics hang on to the three arguments mentioned above, but as methane is better assessed, as it becomes clear that the health warnings are mostly bogus, and when it becomes equally clear that the potential for catastrophic water contamination is way overhyped, then those skeptics will become deniers if they do not update their views based on new data. Similarly, if the Arctic continues to heat up, if avg. global surface temperatures continue to climb, if biological ranges continue to change, and especially if negative feedbacks such as more methane releases from the tundra and the oceans begin to occur, then it will be difficult to remain skeptical about climate change. While there is certainly some uncertainty about climate change: the effects of clouds, the effects of aerosols, the effects of forestation/deforestation, carbon accounting, the likelihood and timing of feedbacks, and the anomaly of satellite temperature measurements, there is more than enough evidence to convince most scientists that it is a problem that needs to be addressed because could have serious and potentially catastrophic consequences.

Drilling Wastewater and Solid Wastes

With fracking there is one issue that is a cause for concern – the increased amounts of wastewater generated. There is a misnomer that has been accepted by the anti-fracking groups that the chemicals used in the initial fracking water are a great danger – some chemicals that may be carcinogenic (at much higher concentrations) and some are endocrine disrupters. But the chemicals, many already in water supplies at very small concentrations from other sources, are highly diluted. In actuality the produced water is more toxic than the water that goes in – not because of those chemicals but because of salts, and to a lesser extent metals, and TENORM. The high salinity of produced water is especially not compatible with drinking water. Analyses of produced water in the Marcellus Shale show high salinity with the major ions including chlorides, sodium, calcium, barium and strontium. BTEX levels were found to be very low in the dry gas areas. Synthetic mineral oil-based drilling fluid can be used which is also low in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and free of BTEX. TENORM levels are generally below state limits even in the ‘hottest’ shales such as the Marcellus. The potential toxicity of drill cuttings is more a function of the drilling fluid than the rocks. Drill cuttings disposal in landfills is also an issue but after some study of leachate reactions researchers have determined that they can be disposed safely in isolated landfills.

Air Pollution and Health Studies

Air pollution around oil and gas wells concerns mainly volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, that can contribute to ground-level ozone. While there are increases in VOCs in the local vicinity of wells these can be minimized with the same technologies as those that minimize methane leakage – simply finding and fixing system leaks. System design can also help. Placement of wells relative to population should be considered. Setbacks for well pads should be adequate and are in most states, say 300-500 ft. However, the setbacks proposed by anti-drilling advocates (and voted down) in Colorado of 2500 feet were ridiculous and would have made most of the prospective drilling areas off-limits. Setbacks for compressor stations need to be considered. Of course, switching from coal to natural gas in power plants is obviously reducing air pollution across the board, especially near the plants. The benefits of massively reduced air pollution near coal plants far outweighs the slight increases around wells. Of course, facilities like refineries and diesel power plants do have significant pollution effects and need to be fitted with pollution abatement equipment. Health studies such as the recent John Hopkins study that attempted to link oil and gas facilities such as wells and compressor stations to increases in asthma hospital visits was inconclusive, suggesting no such correlation. Even so, some of the headlines suggested otherwise and this is dishonest. Other studies, partially funded by anti-drilling interests were equally dishonest, inconclusive, and borderline absurd, in trying to link increases in drilling and producing sites to low infant birth weight. And yet many anti-drilling people continually cite such bogus studies as evidence that fracking is harmful. There is also a large amount of anecdotal data that is almost entirely bogus. While a few stories may be true, most are not. Much of this is what the medical profession calls a “nocebo” effect. Wind turbine syndrome is perhaps a parallel in the renewables industry. 

Since air pollution is a potential local problem it should be monitored as is practical. This can be done with the same technologies as methane leakage detection and repair. Wind and air circulation patterns near high densities of oil and gas systems should be studied and known. The industry should embrace assessment of both methane and VOC leakage, simply as an opportunity to debunk public opposition. State regulatory agencies also do studies as do academic, industry, and environmental groups and this should be encouraged as long as it remains scientific and unbiased. Studies funded mainly by anti-drilling activists and administered by poorly trained biased ‘citizen scientists’ should be held with suspicion.  

Land Use Issues

Producing hydrocarbons in populated areas is problematic. While large multi-well drilling pads can vastly increase the amount of gas or oil produced from a single pad, they can also look like sprawling industrial sites due to the size of the pad and the amount of equipment there. Thus, the big pads need to be sited further away from population than smaller sites and with considerable attention to traffic issues and aesthetics. Of course, with any construction there are issues with sediment and drainage and in some areas there may be issues with forest fragmentation

Spills and Leaks

Spills and leaks need to be kept to a minimum and kept away from major drinking water sources. The EPA’s water contamination fracking study identified two possible exposure avenues for wastewater or drilling components to enter private water supplies: 1) methane migration where methane migrates from a zone below and usually very close to the fresh water aquifer into that aquifer and increases the methane content of the private water. Dissolved methane is not considered dangerous in the low amounts it occurs. There are anaerobic bacteria in our guts that generate methane. It is a common component in our bodies (another thing methane is good for) and it works in concert with other “good” bacteria to protect our health. If the methane concentration gets high enough in a water supply it will bubble out and that does make it an explosion risk. In the worst cases where this has occurred in Northeast Pennsylvania, a major area where methane migration is a concern due to the geology, there have been no explosions nor adverse health effects. Methane migration has become more limited in areas where it has potential to occur – due to better well construction and cementing; 2) spills of waste/leaking pits/leaking pipelines – this is the major area of concern and has been addressed in drilling areas with better regulations and better practices. While there are exceptions and it does occur the industry should be able to improve in this regard. More waste means more opportunities for accidental discharges. Better monitoring systems need to be continued to be developed. This was exemplified recently by an oil pipeline spill in North Dakota that the electronic monitoring system failed to detect. The pipeline was buried in the early 1980s and ground slump due to snow is suspected to be why it broke. The cause for the failure of the monitoring system is currently being investigated. Effective electronic monitoring of wells, pipelines, and other oil and gas facilities needs to be adopted by the industry – for safety and environmental reasons and to assure the public that best practices are being utilized.  The spill, being reasonably close to the Dakota Access pipeline, prompted No-DAPL protesters to point to it as clear evidence of pipeline dangers and fueled their objections further.

   

Anti-Fracking Bias

Anti-fracking groups often collate negative stories about the oil and gas industry: spills, leaks, explosions, and any studies that suggest that practices are causing environmental, health, or other problems. Thus the costs are displayed and the benefits ignored. There is typically little to no advocacy for developing safer practices or for any compromising and full advocacy for full banning – no compromises. As such there is little to no chance for radical activists to win and they are not really participating in reasonable debates utilizing reasonable data. They only use the data (however debunked) that supports their unreachable goals. In a recent op-ed from the leader of an ant-fracking group in a liberal college town there are these quotes: “Does Sen. Brown not yet know the science on the role of fracking in climate devastation because methane is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 at the 20-year time frame and leaks at unavoidably high rates (up to 20% of methane extracted)?” The 20% number is absolutely ridiculous and only small leaks in some parts of the drilling/fracking process are unavoidable. Most new shale gas wells in the northeast leak at rates 1% or less. Another quote from the same op-ed: “Water contamination, air pollution, animal deaths, serious human health impacts, including miscarriages, premature births, asthma, neurological damage, and other ailments, and negative economic impacts on property values, tourism, and sustainable agriculture are the well-documented legacy of fracking.” While there have been a few isolated cases of water contamination, there is some air pollution, and there have been a few isolated cases of animal deaths due to spills, the rest is complete bunk. The negative health effects are simply propaganda no matter how they are disguised as science. The few epidemiological and environmental health studies have been inconclusive at best and none has made anything close to a reasonable suggestion that fracking was causal in any health maladies, despite dishonest headlines to the contrary.

I sincerely hope oil and gas companies and pipeline companies will work diligently to reign in methane leakage and air pollution and to prevent and respond better to accidents, spills, and leaks. If methane leakage is assessed more widely and reduced and if better spill/leak prevention and response happens then maybe these arguments of anti-frackers will lose ground and seem less plausible to the rest of us.