Is Fracking Right For North Carolina?

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is the process of extracting natural gas by injecting high pressure fluids thousands of feet into the ground with water, sand, and chemicals, to break up shale and release gas. Throughout the United States the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been perceived as lax in its oversight of the oil and gas industries, which has resulted in poor regulation over the fracking process. Most, if not all of us, have seen the news stories of homeowners in fracking regions igniting tap water into flames.
The oil and gas industries have used the hydraulic fracturing method since 1947, and have fractured more than one million wells throughout the United States. In the US, fracking boomed with the Energy Policy Act in 2005, which exempted it from compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Also, The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, doesn't cover fracking sites. Regulation and control over fracking has been left to the discretion of each state.

In 2008, the North Carolina Geologic Survey, an organization that provides “unbiased” geologic maps and mineral resource information, published a map highlighting 15 counties in North Carolina that may contain gas or oil. These maps show that North Carolina could potentially have a bounty of natural gas resources at its disposal.

At that point, the North Carolina fracking debate began among politicians. Most recently, July 2, 2012, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to override former Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of the controversial Senate Bill 820, which immediately legalized fracking in North Carolina and created the Mining and Energy Commission to oversee and craft regulations to oversee the fracking process. The highly controversial Commission is made up of 15 members that are charged with establishing a regulatory scheme designed to “protect public health and safety; protect public and private property; protect and conserve the State’s air, water, and other natural resources; promote economic development and expand employment opportunities; and provide for the productive and efficient development of the State’s oil and gas resources.” In addition, Senate Bill 76, which was filed February 11, 2013, will go before the Senate Commerce Committee, where members will examine parts of the bill dealing with taxes and fees that should be imposed on the oil and gas industries. The sponsor of Senate Bill 76, Republican Senator Buck Newton, claims that moving forward with fracking will bring much needed jobs to North Carolina and increase the supply of energy to the United States, which could lower gas prices.

There is a need to examine the potential positive economic impact but there is a greater need to protect North Carolina’s environment and clean water. Fracking advocates say shale gas will provide an inexpensive and clean fuel to offset dirty coal and reduce the need for imported oil. However, environmentalists have raised concerns with lateral drilling and smashing rock under aquifers, which poses unacceptable environmental risks of potential for contamination of fresh groundwater. In addition, scientists have concluded that recent earthquakes in the Midwest, where earthquakes have not previously occurred, is not caused by drilling, but by the disposal of the drilling wastewater used in the fracking process.

ProPublica, a non-profit investigative publication, which reviews issues of public interest, has determined after a five year investigation, that regulators were found to lax in enforcing critical environmental protections against the gas and oil industries. However, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection recently found that faulty concrete well casings were the cause of contaminated water in two townships, which led to a $500,000 settlement for the state and the company installing water treatment systems in the affected households.

In July 2010, Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, , Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson, all researchers at Duke University, released a peer-reviewed study “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing”. The Duke study tested 60 wells in New York and Pennsylvania. The study concluded that most of the wells tested contained some level of methane. However, researchers found that the samples taken from wells located closest to natural gas fracking operations had levels that averaged 17 times greater than the average of wells sampled farther away. The natural gas industry said the Duke study “lacked baseline data” and dismissed its findings.

In 2011, through a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request the New York Times conducted an investigation of the EPA and state agencies that oversee the drilling process in Pennsylvania. After reviewing over 30,000 documents, the Times investigation concluded that many EPA scientists had expressed concerns about the drinking water in Pennsylvania near fracking sites. The documents also reveal that the wastewater after the fracking process is completed, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle, and these findings were not made public by the EPA.

In July 2010, Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson, all researchers at Duke University, released a peer-reviewed study “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing”. The Duke study tested 60 wells in New York and Pennsylvania. The study concluded that most of the wells tested contained some level of methane. However, researchers found that the samples taken from wells located closest to natural gas fracking operations had levels that averaged 17 times greater than the average of wells sampled farther away. The natural gas industry said the Duke study “lacked baseline data” and dismissed its findings.

US Chamber of Commerce is forecasting once fracking starts in North Carolina the industry will create 18,665 jobs and generate over $230 million in revenue. Certainly, fracking will create jobs and have a positive economic impact for North Carolina, though it is questionable if these effects will be long term. North Carolina plans to start issuing fracking permits by March 2015. However, in this short timeframe, I am not convinced that North Carolina will have the processes in place to ensure tight regulatory controls over the industry.

My research shows that the primary concern with fracking has been the contamination of groundwater with methane, which is the by-product of the natural gas extraction process. In November 2011, WRAL reporter Cullen Browder traveled to northeast Pennsylvania, which is the birthplace of fracking in the US. He found that due to increased levels of methane in the drinking water, one could light a match, put it under running tap water, and the water would ignite into flames. Environmentalists’ claim this is a direct result of fracking; the gas and oil industries claim the groundwater in this particular region of Pennsylvania has naturally elevated levels of methane and is not a result of fracking.

In conclusion, regardless of the potential economic or political benefits from fracking, research and studies show potential risk of groundwater contamination and other negative environmental impacts far outweigh the benefits of short term economic growth that may come from fracking. North Carolina legislators are aggressively pushing for fracking to begin in North Carolina without yet having responsible fracking controls in place and without understanding the long term effects on the environment.

Photo by:  Bosc d'Anjou