Hydrocrap

A collection of Research by John Gavin and Antonio Clements

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Position

.. 3

History & CausesCoal

.. 3
History & CausesNatural Gas
.. 5
Present & Future
ConsequencesCoal

.. 8

Present & Future

ConsequencesNatural Gas
.. 9
Proposed SolutionsNatural Gas
.. 9
Proposed SolutionsCoal
.. 9
The Opposition

.. 10

Works Cited

.. 11

A publication of

POSITION
The title of this essay may appear a bit strong to you. That is our intention. For far too
long, the American public has given inadequate concern about pollution in our waterways. In the
days of seemingly perfect filtration systems, it is all too easy to dismiss our water as pure and
healthy. Furthermore, it is even easier to forget about where that water comes from and the
countless organisms that depend off of it. Although some of our waterways may still appear to
have their calm, clear and majestic shimmer, there is a war going on: the struggle against
hydrocrap.
Hydrocrap is any pollutant that contaminates our waterways and aquifers. While there are
many culprits to the water pollution problem, there has been a subtle contributor: fossil fuels. In
this essay, we will have a particular focus on how coal and natural gas production has polluted
our waterways extensively.

HISTORY & CAUSES- COAL

Millions of Americans depend on coal as a source of electricity. While coal is often seen
as an essential and reliable process, burning the stone leaves behind a considerable amount of
ash. Similar to radioactive waste, coal ash is very difficult to store and dispose. For several
decades, coal companies have relied on storing around 300 billion pounds of the waste product in
impoundments called ash ponds (Goodell); however, this has not been without disaster to our
water supply.

In 2000, for instance, about 306 million gallons of waste products were released after the
bottom of an ash pond had collapsed in Kentucky. The sludge contaminated nearby water
supplies, leaving 27,000 Americans without drinkable tap water (Friend). Although the situation
was grave, it was not very pivotal. Luckily, inattention to the coal ash problem ended in 2008
when an ash pond in Tennessee released 5.4 million cubic yards of sludge into the Emory River
and surrounding land (Goodell). It was enough hydrocrap to nearly engulf the first floor of a
near-by house (Friend)! Because of the disaster, other environmental groups have begun to
mobilize against coal ash-pollution. For instance, the Sierra Club began a campaign called
Beyond Coal. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has started further study
of the effects of pollution from ash ponds and has pressured the Senate to review the issue.
Nevertheless, federal legislation and
regulation of ash ponds remains virtually
nonexistent (Goodell).
Disasters such as the ones in
Tennessee and Kentucky could very well
happen again. After all, most ash ponds
are built near existing bodies of water
(Friend). The EPA has stated that coal ash
does have a very significant ability to
contaminate water supplies. In fact, they
have found that coal ash can leachate at
levels that far exceed safety standards set
by the national government (Goodell).

Out off 670 impoundments, the EPA designated 45 as a high hazard to nearby populations. The
coal ash they contain include toxic substances such as lead, arsenic, mercury, and thallium
(Friend). Its no wonder that the EPA found that 1 out of 50 residents near ash ponds develop
cancer as a result of arsenic contamination in the water. By the way, this is 2,000 times over what
seems to be the EPAs unenforced safety standard (Goodell). The Tennessee Valley Authority
still claims to be able to filter some of these toxins (Friend), but why take the risk? Does our
society really want to be responsible for poisoning its own drinking water?

HISTORY & CAUSES- NATURAL GAS

With such a polluted history, there has been an understandable and recent push for an end
to coal burning. Natural gas has been nominated as its successor as it is said to have considerably
less CO2 emissions. While this may be great for our atmosphere, natural gas still has the
potential to destroy our hydrosphere. This is especially the case with hydraulic fracturing: a
process that involves drilling deep underground and then sending a mixture of water, sand, and
chemicals to free concentrations of gas trapped in rock formations.
What can make hydraulic fracturing
problematic is that, structurally, natural gas
companies must drill through local aquifers in
order to access the valuable gas. If the drill is to
leak at any point throughout the aquifer, it has a
great potential to contaminate the drinking
water of nearby residents who depend on it.
Further contamination can occur from disposal
5

of waste fluids into surface waters or injection wells. The fluid sent through the drill is made up
of mostly waterlots of it. In just a single frack, 5.6 million gallons of already limited supplies
of water are used to scrape out the deep-earth. This is enough liquid to provide a typical family
of four in Ohio with water for 51 years.
While other chemicals only make up 1%
of fracturing fluid, there are still 50,000
to 70,000 gallons of toxic substances
passing through our aquifers. Even more
frightening, the Akron Beacon Journal
found, in just one fracturing site alone,
over 1 million pounds of chemicals
(Ohio).
The issue of fracturing is still fairly new. It is so new, in fact, that one of the word
processors used to type this document did not recognize frack as a word. Citizens with wells near
fracturing sites are known for complaining about contamination from the drills. The EPA insists
that the process is safe, but a study by Duke University has contradictory findings. It found that
85% of samples from private wells in Pennsylvania were contaminated with methane; levels
were 17 times higher for wells within one km of a fracturing site. It is worth noting that methane
is known to be an explosive and flammable substance and -at high concentrations- can even lead
to asphyxiation. Despite its clearly destructive potential, the EPA does not consider methane as a
public water contaminant, and, therefore, it is not treated nor held to the standards set by the
EPAs National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Hydrofracking).

At least we know that the methane is there. A study over drilling and hydraulic fracturing
in 2010 found that 950 chemicals were used in fracturing fluid. In fact, for many of the
substances, their health effects were unknown (Downing). Nevertheless, under current
regulations, natural gas companies dont have to disclose a single one of them (Hydrofracking).
From what we do know about the fracturing fluid, it is not very pleasant. Among the few known
chemicals are the volatile organic compounds 1 and 2 dichloroethane, toxins such as methanol
and formaldehyde, and benzene the renowned carcinogen. It would only take a small amount of
leakage and contamination from these
chemicals to poison a large supply of
water.
This situation with natural gas
has been so concerning and little
understood, that the Center for Disease
Control called forth a convention of
medical experts to discuss and clarify
the potential health risks of fracturing
(Downing). Yet, despite the alarm and
the potential risk, the virgin industry has
been held accountable to few enforced
laws and regulations, especially in terms
of disclosure. This is particularly
concerning, as hydraulic fracturing is
projected to grow from providing 15%
As depicted on the graphs, natural gas, especially shale gas (from hydraulic
fracturing) is becoming an increasingly common source of energy in the US.

of our natural gas to 50% (Hydrofracking). Unless firm regulations are put in place, the contents
of the fluids contaminating our water supply will remain a mystery.

PRESENT & FUTURE CONSEQUENCES- COAL

The use of coal and natural gas as energy sources has brought about a number of
problems that the world is beginning to feel the effects of today and will certainly be noticeable
in the future. Coal, like natural gas, is one of the most water intensive methods of generating
electricity. For, example, a typical coal plant withdraws enough water to fill an Olympic-sized
swimming pool every three minutes. That is a huge amount of water that is used up in a fairly
short amount of time.
The problem lies in the fact that global water consumption, according to The
International Energy Agency, is expected to more than double. Most of the worlds future coal
plants are being constructed in regions already facing problems with water scarcity. Around 2
billion people live in countries with absolute water scarcity and the number is expected to rise
exponentially. In fact, 63% of the population of Brazil, China, India and Russia are living under
medium to severe water stress. In the future, this will bring about conflict between people and
the needs of the environment. Basically, coal is dividing up what little clean water is left and
determining whether it needs to be used to sustain the human population or the environment.
America has a front row seat to watching the effects of heavy coal use on the rest of the countries
of the world, and if we continue to abuse it, we could end up running out of clean useable water
for ourselves (Greenpeace).

PRESENT & FUTURE CONSEQUENCES- NATURAL GAS

Natural gas is another resource that comes with its own set of problems. As we have
discussed, one process of getting to the source of natural gas is through hydraulic fracturing. This
is what particularly provides problems for the water in our environment. The public perceives
natural gas as a form of clean energy. It is true that natural gas is a far less hazardous resource
than coal, but by no means is it a clean energy source. As of right now, little is known about the
effects of natural gas to fully determine the extent of its impact (Fracking). Yet again, from what
we do know currently about its reputation for methane and other hazardous contamination, the
future health and ecological impacts of hydraulic fracturing could prove to be terrifying, if we
are not careful (Downing; Hydrofracking).
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS- NATURAL GAS
The best way to combat the pollution caused by coal and natural gas is to strike right at
the heart of the problem: government. To correct the problems that America faces with coal and
natural gas, the people need to rise to the occasion and express our dissatisfaction about the way
these industries are damaging our environment. The best course of action for combating the
growth of the natural gas industry is to delay its expansion until further studies can be undertaken
to witness the full extent of natural gas on our environment. The backing of this policy would
have to be tremendous because of the rich and deep pockets of the natural gas industry. After all,
it is made up of oil giants, such as BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Chevron (Fracking).
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS- COAL
Combating the pollution of coal requires a similar approach. Policies need to be put in
place to allow the Federal Government to further regulate the storage of the coal ash that is left
over from its use. The government ought to enforce stricter standards than what are being

employed as of right now and it should put a greater focus on preventing the leakage of coal ash
into clean water that would inevitably poison the rest of the environment (Russell).
THE OPPOSITON
The main opposition against clean water resources comes from large companies that
profit greatly off the exploitation of our water in their processes to obtain coal and natural gas.
Today, many companies in the natural gas industry are maintaining the argument that natural gas
is a cleaner alternative to coal and oil, and they insist that this argument should satisfy us. We
disagree. In reality, next to little is known about the true effects of coal and natural gas and these
companies are taking advantage of lax government regulation over their usage. The coal
industries main argument is that coal usage is relatively cheap and that it is an abundant resource
that exists on the planet. What we are not being told is how damaging the process for burning
coal is to the worlds water supply, as we have discussed here in this essay. This is the same
scenario for natural gas. From poisoning water with coal ash or using massive amounts of water
to carve under the surface, the coal and natural gas industries are creating a big mess for later
generations to clean up and figure out. That is, if we continue not to act.

10

Works Cited
ClickerFreeVectorImages. Sludge and Dead Fish. Digital image. Pixabay. Pixabay, n.d. Web. 24
Apr. 2016.
"Coal Impacts on Water." Greenpeace International.Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Downing, Bob. "Fracturing Natural Gas Wells Requires Hundreds of Tons of Chemical Liquids.
Ohio.com. Akron Beacon Journal, 11 Feb. 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Environmental Protection Agency. Hydraulic Fracturing-Related Activities. Digital image.
_______Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 24 Apr.
_______2016.
"Executive Summary." Fracking the Future. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
"Fracking Impacts: Water Quality." Ohio Environmental Council. Ohio Environmental Council,
18 Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.
Friend, Tim. "Water in America: Is It Safe to Drink?" National Geographic. National
_______Geographic Society, 17 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Goodell, Jeff. "Coal's Toxic Sludge." Rolling Stone 1101 (2010): 46. Print.
"Hydrofracking Changes Water Wells." Underground Construction 66.7 (2011): 8. Small
Business Reference Center. Print.
Russell, Pam Radkte. "Coal-Ash Dilemma." ENR: Engineering News-Record 267.4 (2011): 44_______48. Print.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Aerial Image of Kingston Ash Slide 12/23/08. Digital image.
_______Tennessee Valley Authority. N.p., 23 Dec. 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
United States Energy Information Administration. History of Energy Consumption in the United
_______States. Digital image. N.p., 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

11

U.S. Dry Natural Gas Production. Digital image. N.p., 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Water Use for Fracking. Digital image. Newsroom. United States Geological Survey, n.d. Web.
_______24 Apr. 2016.

12