Nexus - 1805 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

FRACKING AN ECOLOGICAL DISASTER FRACKING ECOLOGICAL DISASTER Not only does hydraulic fracturing cause enormous environmental and social damage, but the gas extracted from shale and coal seams has a much larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal, and its use will be ineffective in reducing global warming. he controversial method of obtaining “natural gas" out of shale or coal seams, known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking, is causing devastating environmental and social damage. Despite evidence to the contrary, the “natural gas" obtained in this way is widely reported as "the green energy of the future". This is because the gas industry and some so-called environmentalists promote the fact that "natural gas" has only about half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal in its end use. This does not take into account the disastrous effects of obtaining the so-called "greener product". Nor does it take into accoun’ all the greenhouse gases released during its entire production and consumption cycle. Fracking involves drilling a well vertically then horizontally into a shale or coa seam, and then injecting it under pressure with fracking fluid to release the "natura gas". Each time a well is fracked, around a million (US) gallons of water is mixed with at least 5,000 gallons of toxic chemicals and is forced with sand into the wel to crack open the layers of coal or shale to release the gas. Each well is fracked multiple times. The process is unpredictable, as there is no way to tell which way the shale or coal will crack. Some of the fracking fluid stays underground, but a least half comes back up with the original chemicals in it, mixed with many other toxic substances that it has picked up in its passage underground. There is huge potential to contaminate underground and aboveground water and land with this toxic mix. The water mix that comes back to the surface is called produced water and has to be removed and disposed of properly. If one of the cracks opens up to an underground aquifer or to an uncapped area above the ground, catastrophic effects can occur. A fast-growing public backlash against fracking is arising from the many negative impacts on the immediate physical environment. Not only has fracking contaminated and poisoned farmland, aquifers, waterways and the air, it has also been deemed responsible for increased seismic activity.’ In the USA, where fracking has been conducted for decades, many serious environmental problems have resulted. In a 2011 documentary titled Fracking Hell,” Dr Tony Ingraffea, Professor of Engineering at Cornell University, explained: "Once he chemicals are injected and the fracturing process is complete, a large percentage of that fluid comes back up. So we have purposely polluted large quantities of fresh water with chemicals that do not belong in the human environment, and now we have the responsibility...to dispose of them properly. But we're talking enormous quantities." He also said: "The estimate of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental [Protection] is one serious environmental concern for every 150 wells drilled to date... If we're talking undreds of thousands of wells, we're doing hundreds or thousands of spills. That's called cumulative impact.” An industry worker noted: "Some of the sites are well regulated...but the rest of the 95 per cent of them...no. I've seen chemicals come out of the side.. .it looked like the mountain was bleeding..." In Dish, Texas, 10 billion cubic feet of gas runs through the town each day, by Catherine Simons, BSc © July 2011 NEXUS Magazine, PO Box 30, Mapleton, Qld 4560, Australia Email: editor@nexusmagazine.com © July 2011 NEXUS Magazine, PO Box 30, Mapleton, Qld 4560, Australia Email: NEXUS ° II by Catherine Simons, BSc editor@nexusmagazine.com AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2011 www.nexusmagazine.com