Hydrofracking
Last Updated: October 31, 2011
Hydrofracking: Is hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, a safe way to extract natural gas?
Pro/Con Article Media Editorials News
Page Tools Highlighting
FULL ARTICLE
Introduction
Background
Supporters Argue
Opponents Argue
Conclusion
Chronology
By the Numbers
Spotlights
Discussion Questions
Bibliography
Further Resources
Introduction
SUPPORTERS ARGUE
There is no proven case of hydrofracking contaminating drinking water, and the process is perfectly safe. Natural gas can revive local economies, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and provide a cleaner-burning fossil fuel. Further regulation is unnecessary and will only prevent an opportunity for the United States to develop an alternative energy source and create jobs.
OPPONENTS ARGUE
The chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and pose a danger to public health if they contaminate drinking water reserves or leak out of wells. Oil and gas companies are not being honest with the public about the dangers of hydrofracking, and the federal government should apply much stricter, nationwide regulations to ensure that hydrofracking does not cause widespread health problems that could plague the public for generations.
Issues and Controversies: Hydrofracking Workers
Workers at a natural gas well site in Burlington, Pennsylvania, in April 2010 prepare a drill to begin the process of hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking.
AP Photo/Ralph Wilson
Many observers have hailed natural gas as a solution to several energy problems facing the U.S. Utilizing the country's ample domestic supply of the resource, many have said, could greatly decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and possibly drive energy prices down. Furthermore, natural gas produces much less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, about half as much as coal, making it the cleanest burning fossil fuel available. Energy experts have also touted natural gas as a cheap alternative to renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar energy, until engineers devise a way to make renewable energy more cost efficient. According to the Department of Energy, natural gas already produces about one-fifth of the nation's electricity, a proportion that may increase as energy firms tap more domestic reserves of natural gas.
The Marcellus Shale, a 95,000-square-mile geologic formation deep underground that stretches from West Virginia through Pennsylvania to upstate New York, is estimated to contain as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In order to access the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale and other shale formations, however, energy companies have to employ a controversial procedure called hydraulic fracturing—also known as "hydrofracking" or simply "fracking." Hydrofracking is a technique that releases natural gas by pumping millions of gallons of water, laced with sand and chemicals, thousands of feet underground to blast open, or fracture, shale formations, freeing the gas. [See Today's Science: Natural Gas—Bridge to the Future?]
Some have said that hydrofracking entails risks that may outweigh the benefits of natural gas extraction. Discover magazine journalist Linda Marsa writes, "Fracking has already drawn considerable scrutiny from environmental groups, unhappy homeowners, and teams of lawyers who blame the drilling method for polluting pristine rivers, turning bucolic farmlands into noisy industrial zones, and leaking enough methane to make ordinary tap water as flammable as lighter fluid." Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found in 2004 that hydrofracking posed "little or no threat to underground sources of drinking water," the agency launched another, more extensive study into hydrofracking in 2010 in response to public concern, with a report expected by the end of 2012.
The state governments of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are currently debating allowing hydrofracking sites on the Marcellus Shale near the Delaware River watershed, which provides drinking water to millions of residents in the region. Environmental and other advocacy groups have petitioned to stop the spread of hydrofracking in the area, yet Pennsylvania alone has already licensed more than 3,300 permits for natural gas wells on the Marcellus Shale, and thousands of similar wells are active on other shale beds across the U.S., from Colorado to Louisiana.
Is hydrofracking safe? Is the procedure harmful to the environment and public health or a necessary step toward ending U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and reducing the nation's carbon emissions? Should the federal government be more involved in regulating hydrofracking?
Supporters of hydrofracking argue that there is no proven case of hydrofracking ever contaminating drinking water, and they say that claims to the contrary amount to fear-mongering sensationalism. Because the process occurs so deep underground, critics contend, it is nearly impossible for fracking fluid to migrate upward far enough to reach water supplies. Furthermore, supporters note, hydrofracking is essential to reaching the country's abundant natural gas resources, which can help solve energy shortage problems and reduce the cost of electricity. The hydrofracking industry will also create thousands of jobs, helping struggling local economies, supporters say.
Critics of hydrofracking argue that, despite industry claims, the procedure can potentially contaminate drinking water with toxic chemicals and pollute surrounding areas. The use of chemicals in the hydrofracking process and the energy needed to operate the trucks and drills, critics say, offset the low carbon emissions from the burning of natural gas, making it no better than oil or coal. Furthermore, opponents contend, pollutants left behind at hydrofracking drilling sites could seep out from closed pipes and wells, posing a danger to public health for generations. Therefore, critics say, the federal government must step in to institute stricter regulations than the states have already implemented.
Technological Advances Make Hydrofracking More Effective and Controversial
Natural gas resources in shale rock result from hundreds of millions of years of geologic processes. The Marcellus Shale, for instance, is estimated to have been formed 400 million years ago when compressed landmasses created the Appalachian and Catskill Mountains. The pressure from the compression formed gaseous hydrocarbons in pockets in shale rock underground, where natural gas now resides.
Hydrofracking in its basic form has existed since the 1940s, when Houston, Texas–based energy company the Halliburton Corporation first used massive amounts of hydraulic pressure and vertical drills to release gas and oil from sandstone thousands of feet below ground. Shale, however, is wider and shallower than sandstone, making the vertical drilling process inefficient because it draws gas from too small a surface area. In the 1990s, new technology allowed drills to turn sideways, enabling them to bore horizontally through shale, thereby accessing more reservoirs of gas. Using one drilling site, companies can create bores of tunnels spreading outward, accessing hundreds of acres of shale.
Such advances in hydrofracking technology have opened up previously unreachable natural gas resources. According to the Congressional Research Service, production of shale gas increased in the U.S. in 2009 by 47%, turning the U.S. from a "net importer to potentially a net exporter." Natural gas provides about 25% of total U.S. energy consumption, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Although it is used by many sectors of the economy, natural gas has been credited with driving down heating prices particularly for residential consumers, who can use the fuel to heat their homes and water efficiently.
But expanded natural gas drilling has also aggravated environmental concerns stemming from hydrofracking. The most frequently expressed concern regarding hydrofracking is the potential contamination of drinking water. Companies must use massive amounts of fracturing fluid (ranging from 2 million to 10 million gallons) to crack open rock. Although the fluid is mostly water, companies add in lubricating chemicals so that the mixture can flow easily through pipes and also mix in sand to keep fissures in the shale propped open so gas can be sucked out. The chemicals in the mixture have generated the greatest amount of public concern.
When companies drill natural gas wells, they generally insulate pipes with steel and cement barriers to prevent the mixture from seeping out and contaminating potable aquifers (drinking water sources) in the area. Because of the huge amount of pressure generated by pumping millions of gallons of water underground, it is essential that those barriers be sturdy, so companies often perform stress tests before hydrofracking and continually monitor the structures for cracks, corrosion or other potential problems.
Companies, however, must also retrieve fracking fluid from underground, in a process known as flowback, and dispose of it, adding to the possible points during the hydrofracking process when chemicals in the fluid may contaminate areas surrounding the drill. Disposal procedures vary from site to site—sometimes the fluid is hauled away in trucks and other times it is disposed of in "evaporation pits." Still other well operators, according the New York Times, have sold their wastewater to local communities, which use the highly salty mix to de-ice roads in the winter.
Environmental organizations and public advocacy groups have long called on energy companies to release the full list of chemicals they use in fracturing fluid. Oil and gas companies have resisted such calls, citing proprietary concerns. As a result, a definite link between fracturing fluid and environmental contamination has been impossible to prove, scientists say, because chemicals found in water or the air cannot be conclusively matched with chemicals used in the hydrofracking process. According to a 2008 report by the investigative journalism nonprofit group ProPublica, "It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of each contamination…because the precise nature and concentrations of the chemicals used by the industry are considered trade secrets…mak[ing] it impossible to vouch for the safety of the drilling process or precisely track its effects."
In 2001, for example, a household drinking water well near a hydrofracking site in Dry Hollow, Colorado, exploded. State inspectors subsequently found in the well high amounts of methane, a gas that is one of the main components of natural gas and can be explosive when present in highly dense concentrations, but, according to ProPublica, inspectors "did not test fracking fluids…because they didn't know what to test for." The family who used the well, the Amoses, was assured their drinking water was safe, but several years later Laura Amos developed a rare adrenal tumor and alleged that chemicals in her drinking water were to blame. Amos later accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement from the drilling company, Encana, but the company also maintained hydrofracking was not responsible for any contamination that occurred. Other districts near drilling sites have reported a large number of livestock stillbirths or other health problems among farm animals.
More recently, some states have made the disclosure of all chemicals in fracking fluid mandatory. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, for example, recently released a list of the more than 590 chemicals pumped deep underground to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale in the state. Some of those chemicals are known to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing). [See Prompted by Hydrofracking Concerns, States Adopt Chemical Disclosure Agreements (sidebar)]
In addition to the potential for contaminated drinking water aquifers due to faulty well construction, and for contamination as a result of the flowback process or improper waste disposal, other concerns have been raised surrounding air pollution, both from the massive number of trucks used to service drill sites and other greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the hydrofracking process.
Issues and Controversies: How Hydrofracking Works (illustration)
Observers Call for Federal Oversight of Hydrofracking
Hydrofracking is largely regulated by state agencies, meaning that little uniform regulation exists nationwide. In general, state oversight has not increased in accordance with expanding hydrofracking activity. According to ProPublica, the number of hydrofracking wells drilled has increased by 42% since 2003, while state regulation enforcement staff has increased by only 9%.
Some observers have called for closer federal oversight of the industry, noting that hydrofracking activity enjoys exemptions from several federal laws aimed at protecting air quality and drinking water supplies. In 2005, Congress passed a sweeping energy bill that exempted oil and gas companies engaging in hydrofracking from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act, a 1974 law aimed at protecting water in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and groundwater wells. The companies had argued that the procedure was safe, and complying with the regulations would be too costly. According to ProPublica, gas drillers are also exempt from the 1972 Clean Water Act, which seeks to curb pollutants at construction sites, and from the Clean Air Act, a 1970 law regulating industrial emissions.
In June 2009, Representatives Diana DeGette (D, Colorado), Maurice Hinchey (D, New York) and Jared Polis (D, Colorado) introduced the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, or the FRAC Act, to Congress. The bill would require oil and gas companies to disclose all chemicals used in the fracking process and would give the EPA authority to regulate the drilling process. The bill has failed several times, but representatives introduced it again in 2011.
In March 2011, President Obama (D) announced his "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future," which included proposals for studying the safety of hydrofracking. In May, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu named members to a committee charged with providing recommendations for increasing the safety and minimizing the environmental impact of hydrofracking.
In August, the panel, headed by John Deutch, the former Energy Department director of energy research, released an interim report containing recommendations, although the final report was not due until November. The report urged instituting stricter regulations, warning that "if effective environmental action is not taken today, the potential environmental consequences will grow to a point that the country will be faced (with) a more serious problem." The report supported some regulations that have already been adopted by a few states, such as the mandatory disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process, and also called for further regulations, such as requiring drilling companies to monitor air quality near drilling sites and restrict the emission of methane. [See Panel Calls for Stricter Regulation of Hydrofracking (sidebar)]
In June, the EPA announced it would investigate claims that hydrofracking contaminates water wells, as well as other safety issues. A 2004 study by the agency that had approved hydrofracking had not considered drilling in shale, or the new practice of drilling horizontally. Furthermore, the new study aims to research the effects of every stage of the hydrofracking process, from the acquisition of water and its mixing with chemicals through the actual fracturing and flowback processes, as well as waste disposal. Industry representatives and some legislators representing drilling states in Congress, however, have urged the EPA to narrow its study. State legislatures have also considered hydrofracking measures. In Maryland, for example, representatives considered a bill that would require gas companies leasing drills in Maryland to fund a state study on the short- and long-term effects of hydrofracking. The bill did not pass.
New York State, in particular, has been a battleground over hydrofracking, as some observers have urged the state government to support drilling that, they say, has boosted the economy in nearby Pennsylvania, while others urge caution over environmental concerns. In July 2011, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a set of regulations to govern proposed drill sites in upstate New York. Considered by observers to be the strictest in the country, the guidelines were geared toward protecting the drinking water reservoirs that serve New York City's population through a series of aging tunnels that originate in reservoirs upstate. The regulations prohibited drilling wells within 4,000 feet of watersheds that feed drinking reservoirs. Furthermore, the state regulations required all hydrofracking piping to be encased within three layers of steel and concrete to prevent possible leaking.
Cuomo's regulations were considered the first step toward lifting a de facto moratorium on new hydrofracking in the state. The Public Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with New York State's Business Council, released a study that month estimating that more than a quarter million private-sector jobs would be created if New York permitted 2,000 requested drilling sites. Others, however, still urged caution. In August, New York State comptroller Thomas DiNapoli proposed legislation that would create a public fund, paid for by the drilling companies, in the case of a hydrofracking accident or contamination that would require costly cleanup. In October, the state's Department of Environmental Conservation released regulations calling for just a 1,000-foot buffer zone, which were criticized by some state legislators as inadequate to protect residents' drinking water supplies.
Issues and Controversies: U.S. Natural Gas Shales in the Lower 48 States (map)
Supporters Argue: Hydrofracking Safe, Good for Economy
Supporters of hydrofracking argue that procuring natural gas from domestic sources is essential to addressing the U.S.'s uncertain energy future. Paul Anastas, the assistant administrator for research and development at the EPA, testified, "Produced responsibly, natural gas has the potential to reduce green house gas emissions, stabilize energy prices, and provide greater certainty about the future energy reserves."
Supporters of hydrofracking contend that it is a perfectly safe process with no history of contaminating water sources. Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, told the Senate, "There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one, reported case of freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing."
Natural gas offers the U.S. many benefits, supporters insist, including increased independence from foreign oil and an opportunity for the country and individual families to save on energy costs. David Burnett, the director of technology at the Global Petroleum Research Institute at Texas A&M University in College Station, said, "We've got terrific natural gas resources. Our country is going broke, but the public refuses to realize how much money they're spending on imported energy."
Furthermore, natural gas could produce fewer carbon emissions, one of the main factors that scientists consider responsible for global warming, supporters argue. Ernest Moniz, the director of the Energy Initiative, a project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge working to develop affordable and environmentally friendly energy sources, said, "Natural gas truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future and could enable very substantial reductions in carbon emissions—as much as 50 percent by 2050."
Indeed, more than any other energy source, natural gas could head off a possible energy crisis in the U.S., supporters say. According to the Wall Street Journal:
The U.S. is in the midst of an energy revolution, and we don't mean solar panels or wind turbines. A new gusher of natural gas from shale has the potential to transform U.S. energy production—that is, unless politicians, greens and the industry mess it up.… The question for the rest of us is whether we are serious about domestic energy production. All forms of energy have risks and environmental costs…. Yet renewables are nowhere close to supplying enough energy, even with large subsidies, to maintain America's standard of living.
Supporters of hydrofracking accuse critics of sensationalistic exaggeration. Referring to the 2010 anti-hydrofracking documentary Gasland, by Josh Fox, Brad Gill, the executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, said, "A Hollywood actor holding a glass of cloudy water proves nothing except that fear-mongering and emotion will always trump science and logic."
Supporters deny that hydrofracking releases dangerous pollutants or chemicals into the environment. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The reality is that 99.5% of the fluid injected into fracture rock is water and sand." Most components of fracking fluid are completely benign, supporters say.
Because the hydrofracking process takes place so far underground, the possibility that it could contaminate drinking water stored much closer to the surface is extremely slim, supporters say. Michael Economides, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of Houston in Texas, testified, "[T]he fracture treatments are [at] well confined heights, at least a mile below the deepest groundwater. The chance of propagating a fracture upward into groundwater is nil. You have a better chance of winning the lottery." It is physically impossible, supporters say, for fracturing fluid to migrate upward from that depth.
Hydrofracking has the potential to help an economy plagued by unemployment, supporters say. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The shale boom is also reviving economically suffering parts of the country, while offering a new incentive for manufacturers to stay in the U.S." In addition to jobs immediately related to drilling, the hydraulic fracturing boom in Pennsylvania has also stimulated related industries; for example, it is revitalizing the steel industry in the state by providing demand for thousands of feet of steel pipe, according to supporters. Supporters note that hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale has created 72,000 jobs in the past two years and has led to a 117% growth in hiring for "core-related industries," according to Pennsylvania's Department of Labor and Industry. North Dakota, another region that has experienced a natural gas drilling boom, has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, supporters point out.
Hydrofracking should be regulated by the states, not the federal government, supporters maintain. They assert that state regulations already in place are more than enough to protect public health and safety from the potential harms of hydrofracking. Further EPA regulations, supporters say, could hurt the industry and the economy. Elizabeth Jones, the chair of the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates mining and drilling in the state, said:
If some of the new EPA regulations considered today are implemented, more than half our oil and natural gas wells could be eliminated. America's production of domestic energy resources would diminish by 183,000 barrels of oil per day and 245 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually. The federal government would lose $4 billion in revenue and the states would lose $785 million in taxes, not counting the additional jobs lost.
Opponents Argue: Hydrofracking a Long-Term Danger to Public Health
Critics of hydrofracking argue that being able to extract valuable natural gas from the earth is not worth sacrificing precious supplies of drinking water. An editorial on gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale in the Post-Star, a newspaper in Glens Falls, New York, contends, "New York state simply can't take the risk. There are plenty of places to find fuel. It's not so easy to find a new water supply for 17 million people." The editorial also notes that, compared to other hydrofracking sites in, for example, Texas or Wyoming, "we have more people concentrated in the area who might be potentially affected by a mishap."
Indeed, critics say that hydrofracking, because of pollution and potential accidents, is too dangerous a procedure to carry out in heavily populated areas. Conrad Volz, a professor at the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works during an April 2011 hearing on hydrofracking that the "unregulated siting of natural gas wells in areas of high population density, and near schools and critical infrastructure" is unwise. He said, "Unconventional gas extraction wells are highly industrialized operations that have public health preparedness risks of catastrophic blowout, explosion and fire."
Furthermore, critics dispute the claim, often cited by hydrofracking supporters, that no proven case of drinking water contamination has resulted from hydrofracking. According to the New York Times, a 1987 EPA report on the process concluded that "hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel…contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away" in Jackson County, West Virginia, rendering the water "unusable." Supporters also contend that similar, much more recent cases exist but have been excluded from government reports under pressure from the oil and gas industry. According to the New York Times "the documented E.P.A. case, which has gone largely unnoticed for decades, includes evidence that many industry representatives were aware of it and also fought the agency's attempts to include other cases in the final study."
Critics also argue that the energy companies urging the public to approve hydrofracking have repeatedly demonstrated that they should not be trusted. The Post-Star asks, "How many times do we have to listen to large corporations with millions of dollars at stake tell us that everything is safe before we react with some skepticism? Aren't they still cleaning up an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from a supposedly safe process?"
Critics of hydrofracking note that the process could dislodge toxic compounds that naturally occur in the shale. Tracy Bank, a geochemist at the State University of New York in Buffalo, told Discover magazine, "Shale is a garbage-bucket rock. The more organically rich the shale is, the more natural gas is present, but the more other stuff is in there too," such as radioactive uranium, barium and arsenic. Bank says, "If the goal of fracking is to extract that organic matter—the natural gas—then you're mobilizing the uranium as well."
Energy companies engaging in hydrofracking are not taking the necessary steps to protect the surrounding environment and communities from the toxic wastewater that results from the process, critics say. Bank told Discover that the water, which is sometimes put into disposal wells or run through drinking water treatment facilities, "needs to be treated like industrial waste."
If water containing such toxic compounds runs into groundwater, critics note, it could contaminate those water sources for decades. Short-term regulations are not enough to control the potential for damage from wells that continue to ooze wastewater for generations after they have been active hydrofracking sites. Anthony Ingraffea, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, told the New York Times, "[A]s the well ages, the fluids that come up from it become more toxic, and the state or companies are even less likely to be tracking it." Critics contend that drilling operators leave as much as a third of the fluid underground, where it is likely to mingle with groundwater and migrate to other locations.
Long-standing hydrofracking sites have already shown signs of hurting surrounding communities, critics say. Marsa writes, "To comprehend the long-term implications of hydraulic fracturing, you need to visit the region where gas drilling first boomed"—the Barnett Shale, which surrounds Fort Worth, Texas, where hydrofracking began in 2002. Marsa notes, "There are now about 14,000 gas wells in the area, and it is there that the environmental fallout of fracking has been most pronounced. Residents have complained for years of contaminated water, poor air quality, and unexplained health problems such as headaches, dizziness, blackouts, and muscle contractions."
Critics also dispute the industry claim that hydrofracking wastewater and methane cannot migrate through the ground far enough to contaminate drinking water or groundwater. Geologist Dennis Coleman told ProPublica that he has observed methane gas from hydrofracking seep for more than seven miles, which, according to industry spokespeople, is supposed to be impossible. He said, "There is no such thing as impossible in terms of migration. Like everything else in life it comes down to the probability."
Furthermore, critics contend, the natural gas procured by hydrofracking is far from the "clean energy" source industry spokespeople claim it is. Marsa writes:
Health risks aside, natural gas may ultimately prove no cleaner than America's other abundant domestic fossil fuel, coal. Cornell University researchers factored in the carbon emissions over the course of natural gas's life cycle when it is extracted using hydraulic fracturing—which includes drilling the wells, erecting the construction sites, building pipelines to transport the gas, fueling the pumps that force the water underground, and transporting the wastewater—and concluded that natural gas is dirtier than coal.
Because of all the risks associated with hydrofracturing, critics urge the federal government to apply uniform regulations nationwide. Robert Summers, the secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment, said, "We need the federal government to take an active role in studying, providing the technical support to states and assisting the states in regulating activities.… While the states should retain the authority to enact more stringent requirements, a federal regulatory 'floor' would ensure at least basic protection of the environment and public health."
Proposals to Make Hydrofracking Safer
The EPA plans to release its research report on hydrofracking by the end of 2012 and the results of longer-term studies in 2014. Meanwhile, some energy companies are experimenting with potentially safer ways of hydrofracking. GasFrac, a Canadian energy company operating natural gas wells in Texas, has tested the use of a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a thick fluid, to break up rock instead of conventional fracturing fluid. The LPG converts into a gas while underground, making it easier to recover because it can be sucked out along with the natural gas in the shale. Industry experts also speculate that LPG could result in fewer carbon emissions, because it should require less truck traffic around drilling sites.
If projects to procure natural gas through hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale proceed, many observers caution, every possible safeguard should be applied. John Ubinger, the senior vice president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, told the Senate committee that previous energy resource booms in his state's history, such as those for coal and timber resources, have levied a "heavy price" on the state in the form of "polluted waterways, thousands of abandoned mines and oil and gas wells, decaying infrastructure, and economic devastation caused by poor planning and a short-sighted thirst for growth." While development of the Marcellus Shale has the potential to boost Pennsylvania's economy, Ubinger says, the state should "do everything possible to create a sustainable, thriving, and successful Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale economy that does not leave an environmental burden to future generations." Whether the energy industry can assuage public anxiety over hydrofracking in the meantime, however, remains to be seen.
Bibliography
Brady, Jeff. "Energy Panel Wants Answers on Gas 'Fracking.'" National Public Radio, August 11, 2011, www.npr.org.
"DiNapoli Proposes NY Gas Drilling Protection Fund." Wall Street Journal, August 9, 2011, online.wsj.com.
"The Facts About Fracking." Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2011, online.wsj.com.
"Governor Cuomo's Hydrofracking Plan Should Go Forward Only with Guarantee of a Safe City Water Supply." New York Daily News, July 9, 2011, www.nydailynews.com.
"Gov't Panel: Fracking Chemicals Should Be Revealed." Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2011, online.wsj.com.
"Hydrofracking Carries Too Many Unknowns." Post-Star, February 13, 2011, poststar.com.
"Is Natural Gas Drilling to Blame for Wyoming Town's Undrinkable Water?" Discover Magazine, September 2, 2010, blogs.discovermagazine.com.
Kaplan, Thomas. "State Comptroller to Propose a Hydraulic Fracturing Fund." New York Times, August 8, 2011, www.nytimes.com.
Kusnetz, Nicholas. "Critics Find Gaps in State Laws to Disclose Hydrofracking Chemicals." ProPublica, June 20, 2011, www.propublica.org.
———. "Report for Obama Questions Effectiveness of Gas Drilling Regulations." ProPublica, August 12, 2011, www.propublica.org.
Lustgarten, Abrahm. "FRAC Act—Congress Introduces Twin Bills to Control Drilling and Protect Drinking Water." ProPublica, June 9, 2009, www.propublica.org.
———. "Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don't Know." ProPublica, December 31, 2009, www.propublica.org.
Marsa, Linda. "Fracking Nation." Discover, May 2011, discovermagazine.com.
Ratner, Michael. "Global Natural Gas: A Growing Resource." Congressional Research Service, December 22, 2010, opencrs.com.
Urbina, Ian. "Pressure Limits Efforts to Police Drilling for Gas." New York Times, March 3, 2011, www.nytimes.com.
———. "Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process." New York Times, March 1, 2011, www.nytimes.com.
Additional Sources
Additional information about hydrofracking can be found in the following sources:
Andrews, Anthony, et al. Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology, and Policy Issues. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2009.
Lustgarten, Abrahm. Hydrofracked? One Man's Mystery Leads to a Backlash Against Natural Gas Drilling. New York: ProPublica, 2011.
Contact Information
Information on how to contact organizations that either are mentioned in the discussion of hydrofracking or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below:
Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA Ariel Rios Building (AR)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 272-0167
Internet: www.epa.gov
Exxon Mobil
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, Texas 75039
Telephone: (972) 444-1000
Internet: www.exxonmobil.com
Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York
38 Lake Street
Hamburg, N.Y. 14075
Telephone: (716) 202-4688
Internet: www.iogany.org
Keywords
For further information about the ongoing debate over hydrofracking, search for the following words and terms in electronic databases and other publications:
Fracking fluid
Horizontal drilling
Hydraulic fracturing
Marcellus Shale
Natural gas
Citation Information MLA Chicago Manual of Style
"Hydrofracking: Is hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, a safe way to extract natural gas?" Issues & Controversies, Infobase Learning, 31 Oct. 2011, http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=2036. Accessed 7 July 2017.
How to Cite
Record URL
http://contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login?url=http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?wid=18566&ID=2036
Academic Standards
Look up Academic Standards
