Marcellus Shale Drilling and Groundwater Contamination
This paper argues that natural gas drilling operations at the Marcellus Shale formation have become a significant source of groundwater contamination. Drawing on government records, environmental reports, and regulatory testimony from New York and Pennsylvania, the paper reviews evidence of radioactive wastewater, elevated levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), and toxic chemicals introduced into rivers, streams, and drinking water supplies through hydraulic fracturing. It also examines the economic motivations behind the drilling boom, regulatory responses from both states, and proposed solutions including new effluent standards and mandatory chemical disclosure requirements. The paper concludes that all major stakeholders acknowledge the contamination problem, even as proposed remedies remain incomplete.
- Introduction: Background on Marcellus Shale formation and thesis
- Radioactive Wastewater and Early Regulatory Responses: NY and PA findings on radioactive and TDS contamination
- The Hydraulic Fracturing Process and Its Contaminants: How fracking generates toxic wastewater and documented harms
- Economic Motivations vs. Contamination Threat: Drilling boom incentives weighed against health risks
- Proposed Solutions and Regulatory Reforms: State-level amendments and reporting requirements proposed
- Conclusion: Stakeholders acknowledge contamination; remedies remain incomplete
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper builds its argument through a logical progression of evidence, moving from official denials to documented findings of contamination, which gives the argument credibility and rhetorical force.
- It balances multiple perspectives — industry benefits, regulatory positions, and environmental findings — and includes a "Weaknesses" section that acknowledges counterarguments, demonstrating intellectual honesty.
- The use of specific quantitative data (e.g., 267 times the safety limit for radium-226, 9 million gallons of wastewater daily) strengthens the empirical foundation of the argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a structured literature review to support a thesis, synthesizing multiple primary and secondary sources — government reports, environmental testimony, and investigative journalism — into a coherent argument. Rather than treating each source in isolation, the author connects findings across New York and Pennsylvania to build a cumulative case for aquifer contamination.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction establishing the geographic and technological context of Marcellus Shale drilling and states its thesis. A literature review section covers findings in New York and Pennsylvania separately. Subsequent sections examine the hydraulic fracturing process, weigh economic motivations against environmental risk, and propose regulatory solutions. The paper closes with an "Assumptions" section restating the evidentiary basis, a "Weaknesses" section acknowledging counterarguments, and a brief conclusion. This is roughly an undergraduate-level argumentative research paper with an explicit pro/con analytical structure.
Introduction
The Marcellus Shale is a black, fine-grained, laminated sedimentary formation that extends deep underground from Ohio and West Virginia into Pennsylvania and southern New York (Paterson 2011). In some locations it is exposed at the ground surface, while in others — such as along the Pennsylvania border in the Delaware River Valley — it lies as deep as 7,000 feet below ground. Drilling is concentrated in areas where the shale is deeper than 2,000 feet. Geologists have long been aware of the natural gas resources found in this formation, but exploring and extracting those resources proved difficult and expensive because of its depth.
Recent technological developments, however, brought new attention to the shale. Rising fuel costs on the world market and the prospect of lower extraction costs through new technology motivated the tapping of this long-neglected resource. The proximity of the shale to high-demand markets in New York, New Jersey, and New England further encouraged the venture. In 2008, the Marcellus Shale Coalition was created to undertake the project. As operations progressed, however, concerns about possible environmental and community impacts emerged. Chief among these was the contamination of water in areas spanned by the shale and, more recently, in areas distant from it. This paper argues that operations at the Marcellus Shale have become a source of contamination of groundwater aquifers.
Radioactive Wastewater and Early Regulatory Responses
No Reports of Contamination in New York
Geologists estimate that the entire Marcellus Shale formation has a yield capacity of 168–516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Paterson 2011). New York's present yearly consumption stands at 1.1 trillion cubic feet, and how much can ultimately be extracted from the shale remains unknown. Most of the wells in the formation are hydraulically fractured. Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping a fluid and a propping material — typically sand — down a well under high pressure. This process creates fractures in the gas-bearing rock; the propping material holds those fractures open so that large quantities of gas can flow into the well. More than one million gallons of water are required to extract the desired amount of gas at present (Paterson 2011).
Drilling operations in New York are under careful oversight. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) conducts a strict permitting process designed to protect the environment and landowners' interests. It screens proposed locations for environmental risks, inspects actual drilling operations, and imposes strict restoration rules once drilling is complete. The Department requires a full environmental assessment if a proposed oil or gas well is within 2,000 feet of a municipal well, and a supplemental environmental impact statement if it is within 1,000 feet. These requirements cover all groundwater, including private wells and oil and gas wells. Because of this stringent regulatory enforcement, no groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing or horizontal drilling projects had been reported in New York at the time of this review (Paterson 2011).
Radioactive Wastewater Found in New York
Quite contrary to the preceding picture, Lustgarten (2009) reports that New York State officials discovered radioactive wastewater originating from Marcellus Shale gas drilling. The State DEC analyzed 13 samples of wastewater drawn to the surface from thousands of feet underground and found that the samples contained levels of radium-226 — a derivative of uranium — at 267 times the safety limit allowed for human consumption. This is roughly 25–30 times above background concentrations (Resnikoff 2010). Radioactive chemicals are known to cause various cancers. If further testing confirms these findings, the energy industry will face stiff penalties, and these radioactive wastes could reach other parts of the country (Lustgarten 2009).
The drilling and dewatering processes used on the shale increase the concentration of radium in the drilling fluid (Resnikoff et al. 2010). Rock cuttings, which absorb up to 20% of this fluid, drain into county landfills. The resulting contamination — including radon, radiologically contaminated leachate, and future reuse of affected sites — is expected to produce serious health problems and to exceed allowable radium concentration levels set by the New York State DEC (Resnikoff et al. 2010; Lustgarten 2009).
New Effluent Standards for Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania is another major location along the Marcellus Shale corridor. In response to the intensifying contamination issue, State environmental officials proposed amendments to the State Code provision governing wastewater treatment (Staaf 2010). These amendments provide for new effluent standards intended to ensure that the Commonwealth's rivers, streams, and drinking water remain clean and safe. The proposed standards address total dissolved solids (TDS), new and existing discharges, additional contaminants, wastewater monitoring, wastewater reuse, and implementation costs (Staaf 2010).
TDS — the by-product of hydraulic fracturing — are a mixture of salts and other minerals drawn from deep underground. They can make drilling wastewater five times saltier than seawater, clog machinery, and alter the color, taste, and smell of drinking water. Although TDS may not yet be considered directly harmful to humans, they can damage freshwater ecosystems (Sapien 2009). The State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) admitted that many of Pennsylvania's rivers and streams have limited capacity to handle additional TDS at present (Staaf 2010). Other reports identified additional contaminants in Marcellus wastewater that the DEP proposal did not address, including potentially toxic and carcinogenic bromides and their by-products — arsenic, benzene, and radium (Staaf 2010).
Similar contamination occurred at Dunkard Creek. Gas drilling companies were discharging wastewater into Pennsylvania's municipal sewage plants, from which it passed into rivers and streams. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned that these plants were not adequately equipped to remove TDS and other chemicals from wastewater, and that TDS could also impair the plants' treatment of ordinary sewage (Sapien 2009).
The Hydraulic Fracturing Process and Its Contaminants
The large volumes of flow-back water generated by hydraulic fracturing carry contaminated chemicals and fluids that were not present at the surface before the process began (LEAN 2011). These chemicals include surfactants, friction-reducing agents, biocides, scale inhibitors, and propping agents. Current disposal methods inject flow-back water into Class II injection wells or discharge it into municipal and industrial treatment plants and surface water resources. Mismanagement can adversely affect both surface water and groundwater. Spills and leaks can occur at the drilling site, during transport, or at disposal facilities; failure to meet treatment requirements compounds the harm (LEAN 2011).
Some of these negative consequences have already been documented in Pennsylvania (Sapien 2009). Workers at a steel mill and a power plant observed salty sediment corroding their machinery. Residents noticed their dishwashers malfunctioning and spots appearing on their plants. Investigation by the State DEP revealed that the Monongahela River — a drinking water source for 350,000 residents — was contaminated with chemicals from Marcellus wastewater. The DEP also found that 10,000 fish were killed by the contamination. Methane leaks reduced drinking water quality in at least seven counties. In response, the DEP reduced the volume of drilling wastewater flowing into the river and opened upstream dams to dilute the contamination — but contamination levels soon rose again (Sapien 2009).
A review of more than 30,000 pages of government and private records on wastewater plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia revealed an even broader problem (Urbina 2011). The records — drawn from field surveys by state and federal regulators, year-end reports by drilling companies, and state-commissioned tests of public treatment plants — yielded three major findings. First, Pennsylvania produced far more wastewater than previously reported, and most of it was sent to treatment plants that lacked the resources to remove toxic materials. Second, 12 sewage treatment plants in three states received and released wastewater into rivers, lakes, and streams after only partially treating it. Third, at least 116 of the 179 wells producing highly contaminated wastewater had radiation levels as high as 100 times the federally set limit for drinking water. At least 15 of those wells produced wastewater containing radioactive elements at 1,000 times above acceptable limits (Urbina 2011).
Conclusion
Operations at the Marcellus Shale have become a demonstrable source of contamination of groundwater aquifers. All major stakeholders — local and state officials, environmental groups, the industry, and affected communities — acknowledge this reality, even as proposed measures to contain or reverse the situation remain works in progress. The economic benefits of the drilling boom are real, but they do not justify the health and environmental costs documented by state and federal agencies. Stricter enforcement of effluent standards, mandatory chemical disclosure, and adequate investment in wastewater treatment technology are essential steps toward reconciling energy development with the protection of groundwater resources.
Bibliography
Legera, Laura. "Hazards Posed by Natural Gas Drilling Not Always Underground." The Scranton Times Tribune. thetimes-tribune.com, 2010. Retrieved May 3, 2011 from http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/hazards-posed-by-natural-gas-drilling-not-always-underground
Lustgarten, Abrahm. "Is New York's Marcellus Shale too Hot to Handle?" ProPublica. ProPublica, Inc., 2009. Retrieved April 18, 2011 from
NETL. "Treatment System Cleans Marcellus Shale Wastewater." National Energy Technology Laboratory: 1105 Media, Inc., 2011. Retrieved April 18, 2011 from
Paterson, David A. "Marcellus Shale." Department of Environmental Conservation: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2011. Retrieved April 18, 2011 from
Resnikoff, Marvin, et al. Radioactivity in Marcellus Shale. Report for Residents for the Prevention of Lowman-Chemung: Radioactive Waste Management Associates, 2010. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://www.rwma.com/MarcillusShaleReport5-18-2010.pdf
Sapien, Joaquin. "With Natural Gas Drilling Boom, Pennsylvania Faces Flood of Wastewater." Scientific American: Nature America, Inc., 2011. Retrieved April 19, 2011 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wastewater-sediment-natural-gas-mckeesport-sewage
Staaf, Erika. "Clean Water Testimony." Testimony & Legislative Position Papers. PennEnvironment, 2010. Retrieved April 18, 2011 from http://www.pennenvironment.org/legislature/testimony/clean-water/testimony-on-marcellus-shale-wastewater
Urbina, Ian. "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers." The New York Times: The New York Times Company, 2011. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.