Hydraulic Fracturing; A Vibrant New Technology Raising Possible Health and Environmental Concerns

 Hydraulic fracturing, or more commonly known as “fracking”, has been highlighted in the media over the last several years due to its disruptive nature and possible adverse side effects. Hydraulic fracturing also proposes many benefits; the difficult task is discovering whether the benefits overcome the possible risks.

Hydraulic Fracturing Defined

  Hydraulic fracturing occurs naturally underground as pressure build up against weakly bonded rock formations, such as shale, once the pressure becomes too great the rock formation will break apart, releasing trapped natural gas. The more controversial side of hydraulic fracturing is induced hydraulic fracturing; in which people expedite the natural process by pumping highly pressurized gas into weak rock layers and then capturing the released gases. As Agricultural and Resource Economics Professor Howard Leathers states, “Hydraulic fracturing…is the pumping in of water into underground sources of natural gas to push that natural gas to the surface, where it can be utilized.”

The Origins of Hydraulic Fracturing

Induced hydraulic fracturing was first tested experimentally in 1947, and commercial applications began right around 1950. Today it is estimated that three-fifths of the natural gas wells worldwide rely on hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing became popular immediately due to its ability to free up previously non-retrievable gas sources, especially during a time when people were worried about gas shortages and gas prices increasing. Due to the controversial nature of hydraulic fracturing and its vast growth, several countries banned its commercial usage for fear of environmental degradation. However, several of these countries, such as the United Kingdom, are beginning to relax their bans on hydraulic fracturing.

The Benefits to Induced Hydraulic Fracturing

One common misconception is that there are no environmental benefits to hydraulic fracturing, this is not true. Brian Tucker, and author for Cleveland Business, wrote in an article published earlier this month that, “unbiased climate researchers have found that the discovery of such cheap sources of natural gas has helped reduce noxious levels in our atmosphere because so many electric utilities are shifting from coal to cleaner gas as a power source.” Investing in hydraulic fracturing and the production of natural gas helps curve down the demand for other environmentally unfavorable practices representing an overall drop in pollution. Natural gas itself Is not the main concern stemming from hydraulic fracturing, and It is widely believed that natural gas is certainly a cleaner energy source than coal production. Another large benefit to hydraulic fracturing is the booming industry it creates and the millions of jobs it produces every year. In places where the shale is abundant, such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, whole towns rely on the hydraulic fracturing production in order to work and provide for their families. Tucker also pointed out in his article that in March of this year, several of the large companies working out of theses shale-rich states, voluntarily came together and set standards to protect both the air and water. These voluntary guidelines set by the companies surpass regulations already invoked on them, in an effort to show the public that these companies do care about the environment and the health of surrounding citizens.

The Downfalls Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing

While the benefits of a cleaner energy source, and more jobs during a period of economic depression sound attractive, the downfalls to hydraulic fracturing must also be addressed. The main concern associated with induced hydraulic fracturing is groundwater contamination. The fluids the companies use to pump beneath the surface and break up the rock layer often contain harsh chemicals and volatile substances. The volatility of the substances, coupled with the shattering of rock structures beneath the surface allow the chemicals to seep into some parts of the groundwater near production and can come with some rather serious adverse health effects. Workers of hydraulic fracturing are also at immediate risk due to airborne crystalline silica which can be inhaled near the wells, the silica is carcinogenic and can cause serious health problems to those exposed. Several other airborne chemicals such as benzene, naphthalene, and methylene chloride, are used in hydraulic fracturing and are known to cause cancer in both humans and animals. The environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing not only include groundwater contamination but also air quality risks, gas and chemical migration to the surface, and the mishandling of waste after production. “Gasland”, a 2010 documentary produced in the United States by Josh Fox, focused on those impacted by the natural gas production industry, especially those involved in hydraulic fracturing, a popular video clip shown below demonstrates what can happen when natural gas migrates to underground water sources, and the impacts this may have on residents.

Do the Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing Outweigh the Possible Downfalls?

This is a question that will undoubtedly be investigated for several decades to come and one we may never fully define the answer for. There are so many variables associated with hydraulic fracturing and we need to look at each one individually and determine its impacts. This is a valuable technology that may just need to be perfected in order to be used in a sustainable and for long-term production. The United States is on the leading edge of the hydraulic fracturing debate and they are the leaders for research into the practice. In the coming decades we are sure to see either a worldwide massive increase in hydraulic fracturing or a decrease do to the environmental degradation and health side effects. 

Final Project Background Information: Induced Hydraulic Fracturing

As my focus for my final project for Jour150 I will research and discuss a highly controversial topic in my major currently, hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a process which can occur naturally underneath the Earth's surface due to weak rock layers, and the presence of pressure and water. The pressure and water cause the weak rock layers to break up and release several valuable resources, most notable natural gas. However, as the demand for natural gas has increased the process of induced hydraulic fracturing has increased, "induced" hydraulic fracturing is the process of manually pumping large quantities of pressurized water down into weak rock layers in order to break them up and release natural gas. This process of induced hydraulic fracturing has had several adverse side effects, as well as several benefits in certain sectors of the economy, so my project will focus on these pros and cons and the overall use of induced hydraulic fracturing today, and whether this practice is expected to continue.

My expert source which I interviewed is a highly respected professor in my field, Professor Howard Leathers, who is currently my Economics of Commodity Marketing Systems professor, and I have also taken his Agricultural Policy class. Although I had slight technical issues dealing with the YouTube Capture app freezing several times during the interview, I was able to obtain a useful clip for my final project. Which can be found below.

Due to the brief and introductory nature of the clip I will be emailing Prof. Leathers and possibly also interviewing another professor in my field in order to gain additional information and media.

Samuel Morse, the Man Behind the Machine That Transformed Our Society Forever

The Story Behind the Electomagnetic Telegraph

Our practice quiz for chapter 7 had an interesting question on the topic of the invention of the electromagnetic telegraph. The question read as follows:

           

Who in 1837 invented the electromagnetic telegraph, which marked the beginning of today's information age?

 a. Guglielmo Marconi
 b. Samuel Morse
 c. Alexander Graham Bell
 d. Susan B. Anthony
 e. None of the above 

The correct answer is B, Samuel Morse. However, I found an interesting article that talks in depth about the invention of the telegraph, which states Mr. Morse did not work alone. The article highlights that without the work of Alfred Vail, Morse’s partner, the telegraph would have never been invented. Sadly, mainstream history only highlights Samuel Morse as the inventor, this is in part because Morse was the brains behind the operation, Vail was only the means.  

As the question states the invention of the electromagnetic telegraph marks the beginning of today’s information age. Prior to the electromagnetic telegraph, long distance communication was a very difficult task. In ancient times, smoke signals, instruments, and other primitive forms of communications were used to translate messages over large distances. These visual and audible cues soon gave way to carrier pigeons, which were unreliable, and then more currently known, mail. Before the invention of the electromagnetic telegraph, sending long distance messages was restricted to hand-to-hand mail delivery. The article highlights a sad story in which a husband did not receive news of his wife’s death for several days, and by the time he had been able to return home, she had already been buried. Sure enough, this man was Samuel Morse. Morse was so perturbed by the fact that he had missed his wife’s funeral purely because there was not an efficient form of long distance communication. This was the seed that spurred the invention, and forever changed history. Messages that used to take weeks if not months to reach their destination could now be sent and received in real-time, fast-tracking communication across the masses.

            The first official demonstration of the electromagnetic telegraph took place on January 6, 1838. Vail and Morse wanted to garner public support for the invention. The demonstration utilized wire wrapped around a room in order to mimic the distance of two miles. The first official message they sent would have lasting foreshadow on the connection between communication and transportation, the message read; “Railroad cars just arrived, 345 passengers.” A simple message with important implications, and a message that would have normally taken exponentially longer. A second demonstration later that month set out to convince more people of the great invention and featured ten miles of copper wire. The telegraph used an output interface of dots and dashes to signify not only alphabetical communication but also numerical. This system of dots and dashes may have been, other than the initial money, Vail’s most important contribution to the practical development of the telegraph. Prior to Vail’s embossed output of dots and dashes, the telegraph utilized an output developed by Morse, which required a double translation, to discern from alphabetical characters and numerical characters.

            Soon after the development of the telegraph Morse realized the possible implications for the expansion of our country’s communication network. With the help of congressmen, Morse received a grant for $30,000 and began installing the technology all over the country. It is interesting to entertain the thought of what might have happened if Morse and Vail had never invented the electromagnetic telegraph, what if Morse had never left home and was present for his wife's death, would we not have achieved the same technological status we enjoy today? As the question states, I believe Morse's and Vail's invention of the electromagnetic telegraph sparked the information age we are currently in, and I imagine the technological advances humanity will inevitably see in the next 175 years. 

The Big Six Takeover

InfoGraphic on the Big 6 Media Conglomerates

Based on the Chapter one readings I believe the digital media will further concentrate into a more corporate, commercialized, and centralized media outlets. As it says on page thirteen of our textbook, “The trend is clear; analog and digital media are rapidly being consolidated into the hands of a few, very large, very powerful, and very rich owners.”

Companies such as Time Warner Cable, The Walt Disney Company, News Corp, Viacom, CBS, and General Electric form the big six media conglomerates. The big six control 90% of American media, in comparison in 1983, 90% of the American media industry was owned by fifty companies. As technology becomes more and more important to us we will continue to feed these media giants, as well as technology giants such as Apple and Microsoft, and they will have more power to force weaker competition out of the market.

Today’s media is becoming more and more digital, magazines and newspaper are a dying art, and online news and media is completely taking over and the media giants are investing in technology more than ever. One thing that this facilitates, which we touched on in class is that now, anyone can publish articles that the world can access, and although this may seem like the media is diversifying, these rouge poster do not hold media power over the large media giants. Another huge change associated with media largely becoming digitized is that the media is shifting to “real-time” acknowledgement of events. No longer do people need to wait for their morning paper to learn about world news, media outlets can upload news live, all around the world.

The large media conglomerates have gained the trust of their readers, their customers believe that what they are reading is credible and truthful, this would be a large obstacle for any new comers in the market because they will have no media credibility, as well as not nearly the amount of resources that the media conglomerates do. As we shift to a more global economy you will see these media giants gain even more strength in the market, for example, CNN, which is owned by Time Warner Cable, is pushing more towards a world news source and not strictly American.

Today, anyone in the world can log on to the internet and check in on news all around the world. We are quickly becoming a global society and the companies with the resources to switch their focus towards this world view will be the companies that control the market. I believe the big six media conglomerate will continue to lead the pack and make it difficult for possible new entrants in the market solely based on their massive capital and resource base. In order to dilute the market share, new entrants would need to come up with some sort of competitive advantage over the large media conglomerates, and I think the only way they would be able to do that would be through a massive technological advancement, and even then those with the most amount of resources are the most likely to produce such an advancement.