Hydrofracking is one of the most controversial issues in the country and perhaps the most widely discussed topic on campus. I purposefully don’t call the topic “controversial” at Binghamton University because that would mean there is a two-sided debate on the issue. There isn’t. There is woefully little pro-fracking rhetoric on campus. If you travel to the relatively rural streets behind the Nature Preserve, you will find as many pro-fracking signs as anti-fracking ones. The area isn’t as resoundingly anti-fracking as campus. We, on the other hand, screen “Gasland” at least once a semester and hold protests against Halliburton. I am not against protests or documentary screenings, but I am against a one-sided provision of information.
Let’s get some facts straight. Hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) has been occurring in New York state to extract oil and natural gas for decades. So why have we been hearing so much about it in the past few years? Relatively recent advancements in the industry have brought about the ability for horizontal drilling, which opens up the Marcellus Shale for high-volume natural gas extraction. So, besides the perpetuation of non-renewable, carbon-producing energy sources, what is wrong with hydrofracking? It’s all in the fluids, baby. A high-pressure solution of water, sand and toxic chemicals is pumped through highly reinforced pipes that eventually break up rock to release the gas that is stored in pockets in the shale. The composition of the solution used to be a “trade secret” due to “Halliburton loopholes” passed under President George W. Bush, but now many companies, including Halliburton, publicly disclose the chemicals in their “frack fluid.” There are two major problems with this fluid: The high pressure can crack the pipes and release fluid and methane into the water table, and storage and disposal of the fluid is expensive and can result in disastrous leaks and spills.
The popular documentary “Gasland,” which helped launch horizontal hydrofracking onto the national stage, is an anecdotal film about a few isolated cases of water poisoning. The primary sob story in the movie, the water of Dimock, Pa., has since been researched and cleared of well-poisoning. The most shocking image of the movie is a family lighting their tap water on fire due to the abundance of methane in the wells. However, the Marcellus Shale is so full of gas that some leaks out into the water table without anthropogenic influence. There has been enough gas in the water table to light tap water on fire for as long as there’s been a water table (probably since the last Ice Age).
So with the chance of major catastrophe, why is this a discussion? There is a ridiculous amount of money to be made in this business, and not just for big, bad oil and gas conglomerates. Landowners who lease their land for natural gas extraction may be looked down upon in the community, but many of them are farmers paying off tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Some of these families will be above water for the first time in their lives and will be able to pump their own money into the local economy. These companies may be bad, but it’s not Walmart driving out local businesses and paying shit money for shit jobs. They’re paying hardworking, salt-of-the-earth people big bucks to lease out a few acres of their land.
There are very few EPA-substantiated claims of water poisoning from hydraulic fracturing. These major incidents have occurred because of human error and failure to follow regulations. Fracking is an inherently safe process; it’s the scary possibility of an accident that makes fracking such a big issue. And if accidents were common, then I would understand. But research shows that the stories you hear are insubstantial and sensationalized.
Anecdotes dominate the debate at the state and national level. The gas companies are guilty of many bad things, but what matters to the struggling landowners is that they are willing to shell out millions of dollars to drill. And here lies the foundation of the environment vs. big business problem. What’s more important, growth or conservation? Jobs or water quality? I am fully ambivalent (not apathetic) on the issue and refuse to get behind either side until the state runs an Environmental Impact Statement on the combined impact of the wells in New York state. But until then, look at information from both NYPIRG (New York Public Interest Research Group) and Friends of Natural Gas with equally skeptical eyes as you remember both of them have their own agendas.