Hydraulic Fracking's Risk to Human Health

Gasland and other mainstream critiques of hydraulic fracking call for extensive investigations into the risks posed to human health and safety. Anecdotes such as the Parr family’s experiences are not uncommon but supporters of hydraulic fracturing, especially the oil and gas industry, contest many of the human health risks. The oil and gas industry and supporting organizations such as the IPAA have a clear interest in combatting scientific efforts to understand the health and environmental impacts of fracking.

Since the rise of fracking as a means of energy production in the United States, scientists have conducted robust investigations into the risks posed by the fracking process. Several scholarly reviews examining high-quality scientific research reported major connections between fracking and harmful health impacts. In a comprehensive review, Deziel [10] identified 25 of 29 studies that reported at least one statistically significant association between fracking and birth outcomes including preterm delivery and low birth weight. Independent studies identified an association between these adverse birth outcomes and proximity to oil and gas developments [11] [12]. Hays and Shonkoff [13] led a meta-analysis of the scientific literature on oil and gas production and human health and found that 84% of published studies indicated a direct public health risk connected to oil and gas development [13]. Other researchers have identified modest scientific findings that support a causal, but limited, relationship between living near fracking operations and several self-reported ailments including exacerbations of asthma, fatigue, chronic migraines, and long-term risk of cancer and neurodegenerative disease [9] [14].

Beyond associations between negative health effects and living near hydraulic fracking wells, scientific research has investigated the mechanisms by which fracking can adversely affect people. Concerns have been raised about habitat degradation and the contamination of air from emissions, but major attention has been directed at the potential for groundwater contamination and its impacts on local drinking water [15]. Frac fluid can contain hundreds of different chemical compounds including 48 of which are known human carcinogens [16]. The contamination of groundwater by fracking fluid wastewater is considered to be the most relevant health and environmental risk tied to fracking [17]. Accidental flow-back of contaminated water, leaking of storage wells, and leeching of methane gas can enter the surrounding groundwater. Leaks and accidental spills are uncommon but pose additional contamination risks. The EPA reports that the most probable reason for drinking water contamination is inadequate installation and monitoring of the cement lining of the drilling holes and storage tanks [18].

Natural gas entering public drinking water due to fracking is another issue raised by Gasland. The movie showed homeowners placing matches near their running water which caused large fireballs to erupt due to the concentrations of dissolved methane gas in the water. Studies have shown that methane concentrations in drinking water sharply increase with proximity to hydraulic fracking wells [19]. Flammable levels of natural gas are common in the water near fracking sites [20] However, no peer-reviewed studies have yet investigated the health effects of chronic ingestion of small amounts of methane [21].

Hydraulic fracking releases methane gas and volatile organic compounds into the air, and these can have negative health impacts. Of the 29 potential air contaminants linked to fracking that have carcinogenicity information available, 20 are known to cause cancer in humans [22]. McKenzie et al. [23], found that residents living within half a mile from wells were at a greater cumulative cancer risk than residents who lived farther away. Other researchers have found associations between the prevalence of health conditions including skin and respiratory irritations in individuals who live closer to natural gas extraction sites than individuals who lived farther away [24].

Hydraulic fracking is a broad and complex issue. Across the body of scientific literature, researchers are reporting meaningful connections between living near fracking wells and exposure to harmful chemicals. However, since hydraulic fracking development and operations are relatively recent, a few scientists maintain that directly attributing fracking to adverse effects requires more research [25] to address the uncertainties regarding the safety of hydraulic fracturing [26]  [27].  The American Chemical Society’s position statement on hydraulic fracking calls for independent research on the environmental impacts of the practice, and science-based policies to promote both human health and oil and gas development [28].

Hydraulic Fracking’s Risk to Local and Global Environments

Shale gas development is relatively new, and measurable environmental impacts can take decades to cause harmful consequences [29]. Studies have investigated the impact that hydraulic fracking may have on groundwater, surface water, aquatic ecosystems, and the atmosphere. Circumstances where fracking can impact drinking water resources include spills of toxic frac fluid chemicals, injection of frac fluids into drill wells that are low in mechanical integrity, injection of frac fluids directly into groundwater resources, and inadequate handling and disposal of wastewater and chemicals [30].

Geological and environmental scientists have published research that demonstrates significant impacts on both ground and surface water. For instance, Entrekin et. al. [31] describes several risks to water from natural gas extraction including chemical and sediment contamination of drinking water reservoirs, alterations to the flow of streams, and harmful pollution to aquatic ecosystems. Burton et. al. [32] reported significant concerns with natural gas operations including increased erosion, risks to aquatic ecosystems from chemical runoff, habitat fragmentation, loss of stream riparian zones, and the reduction of available surface water both for ecosystem and human use. Deforestation and vegetation loss are a concern among several scientists. Vegetation, especially along stream and riverbanks, provides a barrier to sediment loss, runoff pollution, and erosion. Without strong regulation and monitoring, some scientists worry that disturbances could lead to significant habitat loss and waterway pollution [33] [34]. Many species of salamander fish, mussels, birds, and flowering plants are also highly susceptible to changes in water contaminants as a result of nearby fracking [35].

Across the scientific literature, consensus exists that fracking poses major risks to three aspects of water resources: toxin contamination, methane leaking, and over withdrawal of freshwater resources. Water consumption by the drilling and fracking processes is a major concern. Typical fracking wells need about 2-20 million gallons of water depending on the depth and underlying rock formation [36]. This is relatively low compared to other fossil fuel extractions, but the density of wells combined with the exponential growth in hydraulic fracturing poses a major risk to freshwater sources at a local level [37].

Natural gas extraction from drilling and fracking can leak methane into the atmosphere, and methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere [38] [30]. To reduce the amount of methane entering the atmosphere, a technique called flaring is used that burns the escaping gas. Flaring produces CO2, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and other compounds, but this is an overall safer process than permitting methane to escape. Ultimately, despite being a cleaner energy source compared to other fossil fuels such as coal and oil, increased natural gas extraction will seriously exacerbate anthropogenic climate change [39].

A final environmental concern is the potential risk of fracking to stimulate seismic activity and trigger earthquakes. In 2009, responding to a significant uptick in reported seismic activity, scientists began investigating whether a connection exists between underground fracturing, wastewater injections, and induced earthquakes. The United States Geological Survey [40] concluded that only 2% of reported earthquakes in Oklahoma could be attributed directly to the fracking process. Instead, the surge in seismic activity was induced by the increase in wastewater disposal. This separate process happens in both oil and natural gas production. The wastewater from the production process is injected deep underground, far below groundwater aquifers. This storage process, while part of the overall oil and gas extraction process, is primarily executed in oil extraction, not fracking [40].

More recent research into fracking’s effects on seismic activity has yielded potential correlations between well sites and induced earthquakes. In a presentation to the Seismological Society of America, Rebecca Salvage from the University of Calgary discussed her recent research on seismic activity near hydraulic fracturing operations in British Columbia. She found that of the hundreds of small earthquakes occurring since 2019, 65% of them could not be attributed to natural seismicity or fluid injections. Interestingly, her study occurred during the two years since the COVID-19 pandemic shut down fracking operations in 2019. Thus, she and her colleagues suspect that fracking is causing long-term, lasting changes to the seismic activity in the area surrounding the fracking sites [41]. Other researchers are examining increases in small earthquakes in regions where fracking operations have grown such as Ohio and Texas. The research linking fracking to induced earthquakes is science “in-the-making”, but many scientists now suspect fracking contributes significantly to induced earthquakes and research substantiates this link is in progress [42] [43] [44].

The scientific community is confident that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas poses environmental risks. Water contamination can harm the health of humans and other organisms as well as damage nearby ecosystems. Fracking also significantly alters the atmosphere and air quality. Airborne particle pollution is reducing the air quality of residents living near fracking wells. Anthropogenic climate change is exacerbated by the large amount of methane released from fracking which in turn results in destructive implications for people and ecosystems all over the world. Reliable science organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American Chemical Society call for rigorous research and policy to mitigate the potentially devastating effects of hydraulic fracturing.

Resistance from the Oil and Gas Industry

Despite the emerging scientific consensus regarding the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing, the oil and gas industry has exerted significant resistance to regulations and restrictions on fracking operations. Their efforts include incomplete or inaccurate representations of studies to give the appearance of supporting the energy industry’s position. For instance, one prominent organization, the Western Energy Alliance (WEA), states that “the EPA has concluded that hydraulic fracturing has not led to widespread systemic impacts on drinking water” [45]. However, the EPA’s Final Report [18] on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, states that fracking can:

Impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. Impacts can range in frequency and severity, depending on the combination of hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local- or regional-scale factors. (p. ES-3).

​

The WEA maintains that the EPA, due to data gaps and uncertainties, is limited in its ability to fully assess the potential impacts on drinking water resources. Data gaps and uncertainty are a normal part of the scientific process of building a well-rounded understanding of phenomena. Western Energy Alliance is foregrounding uncertainty to cast doubt about the emerging scientific consensus regarding the risk fracking poses to drinking water. The Heritage Foundation, a pro-fossil fuel conservative think tank, publishes misinformation frequently regarding fracking and U.S. energy interests. For instance, in an article titled Fracking Could Save the Planet, author Stephen Moore argues that the advantages of natural gas include jobs and other economic benefits for the U.S. He attacks the “Greens,” who are unhinged objectors of clean, environmentally friendly fracking. Notably, Moore never addresses human health or pollution concerns in his defense of fracking [46]. His argument rests on the economic gains from fracking. That is no surprise given Moore’s qualifications. His title is a distinguished fellow in economics. His expertise lies in economics, not in scientific understandings of fracking. By speaking about fracking “saving the planet” Stephen Moore has skirted the scientific consensus on the health and environmental hazards posed by fracking and its wastewater.