Eagle Ford Shale Industry Analysis

These issues often stem from very similar risk factors on multiple levels regarding the individual, inter-intrapersonal, community, institutional and policy regulations. In Houston, Texas one of the current issues is air pollution. Several populations are at risk of suffering from an increase in respiratory diseases. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) brought attention to the issue earlier this year with a four-part series of articles. They highlighted an increase in ozone levels across the city during 2015. It is suggested that this could possibly cause Houston to exceed EPA regulations. Houston and other surrounding areas in Texas need to commit to changes that can lower ozone average levels in 2016.

Next comes the issues with the refining of the tar sands oil. This is where Texas comes into play and how the refining of such dirty oil will affect communities and people located in the state of Texas. “Refining tar sands oil is dirtier than refining conventional oil, and results in higher emissions of toxic sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. These emissions

1). These oil industries claim it does not affect the state’s drinking water; conversely, the congressional study also ranked Oklahoma third in cancer causing chemicals used (Bailey, par. 7). Cheasepeake and Devon Energy Corp. are two of the leading syndicates brought up when investigating the problems of fracking in Oklahoma.

Local control is in close contact with the people hence it is easier for local control to enact a ban as compared with the state Government. The local control bans however fails to progress due to some court decisions that dictate that local control as well as the bans imposed by them are void. However, the local control has the interest of people at heart. According to the people of Texas, there should be put measures which ensure that the environment is well conserved. Texas people were having the power to preserve their environment until the policy-makers passed bills that denied Texas citizens the mandate to preserve their environment any longer. According to the articles, gas and oil extraction as well as excursion of wastewaters led to experiences of Earthquakes in Texas which called for more control on the mining process by Texas oil industries. Sadly, the law-makers’ current bills insinuated that those industries would continue to handle their business normally leaving the citizens with zero control over their

In the article “Fracking pollutes the Air with Hazardous Chemicals, authors Jim Polson and Jim Efstathiou provide some insight and staggering evidence of the danger of chemical pollutants due to such drilling. “Researchers, have found potentially toxic chemicals – including cancer-causing benzene- in air near fracking sites.” The authors go on to assert that researchers, “estimate a higher risk of health problems for individuals who live near those wells” (Polson). What Polson and Efsathiou are reporting further supports the need for stricter regulations that limit how close the sites can be to the public as well raising additional concerns about the types of chemicals are being used in this process, and how dangerous they can be for the public. This, of course, has to be very disconcerting information for many, how such a process can yield such dangerous chemicals. Though it isn’t as astonishing to people that have been exposed to it. Many of which have compiled their painfully personal stories and struggles in the book “Shalefield Stories.” Stories like that of Judy Armstrong Stiles who lost her husband Carl to suicide which Judy attributes to the effects of intestinal cancer. Carl developed the cancer while living in a home surrounded by fracking sites. The various independent reports the family ordered to test their environment reflect the family’s suspicions, including various alarming levels of lead, methane and arsenic (Shalefield Stories: Personal Collected Testimonies).The tragic story of the Armstrong family only provides a personal look into the dangerous of fracking, for even, after all, the incriminating evidence the natural gas companies were not held to any fault. According to current regulations, these companies are not required to disclose the chemical they use in their work (Neuhauser). This whole issue gives the cause infinite more reason to protect real lives. What this

The industrial revolution in the 1800s enhanced the lives of the American citizens. No longer were cultivation and farming a chief concern; instead, manufacturing and machinery were the major improvements of that time. Still today, big corporations are looking for the next big thing that could aid citizens in their everyday lives. What is often ignored, however, are the environmental factors that are being affected by the decisions made by these industries. Harmful acid rain, smog, and buried nuclear wastes diseased the Northern continent where some places were deemed uninhabitable to the public because of the threatening health risks. Environmental laws and agencies were then created in the 1970s to shift the impact that corporations have on the environment. The unchecked power that big corporations have exhausted has enhanced the decline of environmental stability and initiated many territorial restrictions due to the careless actions of the company.

The Eagle Ford Shale is located in South Texas, stretching from the boarder of Mexico from just north of Laredo to about 50 miles northwest of Houston, covering a 9,500 mi2 area (Scanlon). It lies about 50 miles west of Austin and 25 miles south of San Antonio. The dimensions of the Eagle Ford Shale are about 50 miles wide and stretching 400 miles long. The Eagle Ford Shale is one of the most oil rich parts of Texas but yet is still one of the driest with only 21 inches of rainfall a year at the heart of the shale, Carrizo Springs. The reason we are interested in this area is to discuss the very fast growing industry of Hydraulic Fracking and its environmental impact. To understand why this area is so rich in oil and natural gas we must

The ethical issues that were identified in the case study of Guerrilla Government in EPA’s Seattle Regional Office were cumbersome. The first of many to create unethical situations was the administrator of EPA’s Seattle regional office in 1981, John Spencer. His staff remembers his tenure for all the unethical actions he took such as using tax payer’s money to buy a membership for the EPA in the Chamber of Commerce (O’Leary, 2014 p. 48). His actions continued even after numerous attempts to advise him that his actions were against federal guidelines and caused serious conflict of interest questions. He also allegedly took several personal trips to Alaska to handle

In this case, I represented Shale Oil. It was my job to persuade the town’s people of Ethictopia to use Shale Oil to be the power source for their community. I presented oil in the best light possible. I did point out the pros and cons through the maximalism perspective, by providing the best information possible. I had a difficult time trying to talk people in to using an energy source, which I personally feel needs to be pulled off the shelf. However, I did point out a few facts about oil that shows that there is some wiggle room for the greater good. The main point that I tried to stress, is the fact that oil is a cheap and an easily accessible resource. The major downfall of oils is that it causes

In a state like Texas, where the value of oil and gas wells are taxed locally as real property

Throughout history, Texas and the federal government have been through conflicts over controversial laws affecting both the state and the nation. One federal law, known as the Clean Air Act (CAA), was established in 1963 to allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to manage the environment by regulating air emissions around the nation (Hackney). The law is “a model of “cooperative federalism””, where states may regulate according to federal standards, and known as “a source of persistent federal-state conflict” as well (Alder). Since Texas is known for high industrial air pollution, the federal government has imposed limitations on air emissions by the state through the CAA, which is the reason for this federal-state conflict. The

United states, china and Russia are the top 3 producers of oil shale in the world. One of the many reasons oil shale is important is the economical factor (soaring price, the non independence of more than 85% of the countries in the world ) also Oil shale can be used, transformed or treated into diesel and jet fuels or petrol. Oil shale was deposited in the Songlio Basin(NE china) during the upper cretaceous period, representing an excellent hydrocarbon source of rocks.

As we saw, the world has been constantly seeking for technologies to improve what has been achieved so far. Today, efficiency is the key factor on the labor market involving millions of money around engaged on the funding and discovery of new forms to extract oil from the Earth’s depths.

This fact should spark a disturbance with many citizens because it shows how congressional votes depend on the use of a carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuel to make decisions. Some argue that the decisions politicians make will not truly affect Americans; however, this is not a sound argument. Perhaps these people do not see the full effect of a politician’s stance on the environment right away. That all changes when certain politicians, especially conservatives, are voted into office. When a certain group has control over the government and governmental policies, areas such as the food industry can be manipulated to follow this economy-over-environment pattern. For instance, in Elizabeth Grossman’s article “Banned in Europe, Safe in the U.S.,” Grossman describes “the process for restricting chemical use under the TSCA can also take years; in fact, only a handful of chemicals have ever been barred under TSCA” (Grossman 5). This quote clearly illustrates that getting rid of unsafe or potentially unsafe chemicals is almost impossible. If it does occur, people will still be exposed to the chemical for years to come. Why would the government want to use such harsh chemicals? The chemical is working to better the economy, whether it is being sold in grocery stores or used to create a product produced by thousands of workers to stimulate job growth. The government does not want to risk the economy over dangerous environmental impacts. The

State representatives have put greater precedence over the economy than the health of our environment. Continuously passing bills that permit unsustainable environmental degradation to produce manufactured goods and emit toxic pollutants. They