Thoughts On Fracking

I am pleased to see that C&EN is giving attention to the plethora of environmental and health problems associated with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, technology (C&EN, March 16, page 8). I have a suggestion for government: Start regulating and actually enforcing real environmental oversight. I do understand the reluctance to do so. It would hurt campaign contributions and other perks from industry.

But if two things were to happen, perhaps we could feel better about fracking. First, full disclosure of the quality and quantity of everything that is injected into our environment should be required. All additives and their amounts plus the octanol/water partition ratios, LD₅₀ values, biodegradabilities, and all other pertinent information must be cataloged before use. Second, a man-made nontoxic tracer must be added to the fracking fluid. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) is used extensively by the U.S. Geological Survey. However, a wide variety of other materials could be used such that each well has a specific and verifiable tracer. Any contamination of aquifers, individuals’ drinking water wells, rivers, and the like could then be proven, and industry would be liable. Additionally, methane leakage at each and every well must be monitored, because climate change is real.

Full disclosure, gas leakage monitoring, and verifiable fracking fluid tracers must become part of law—and sooner rather than later.

J. William Louda
Boca Raton, Fla.

Contrary to C&EN’s reporting, hydraulic fracturing has actually been widely used in both conventional and unconventional formations (page 13). I am also surprised to see that New Mexico was labeled as a “no fracking” state in the figure. The Permian Basin, a large oil- and natural-gas-producing area, is largely contained in the western part of Texas and the southeastern part of New Mexico. New Mexico is one of the U.S.’s biggest oil- and gas-producing states.

Leiming Li
Sugar Land, Texas