Effects Of Fracking

For the past twenty to thirty years, hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, has been the number one source of natural gas, oil, and energy in the United States. The process of fracking is that a well is built above the ground and then a drill digs several thousand feet deep into the ground to extract the oil and natural gas that is trapped inside of rock formations. Fracking is very controversial because of the cost of the process and the environmental “threats” that it poses. From methane emissions to earthquakes, fracking has been accused to be linked with several environmental issues. To prevent any environmental dangers, states place regulations and boundaries that energy companies have to follow in order to build a well and keep it up and running. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) also works with states to help regulate these wells. More importantly, fracking in the United States is very important and acts as a bridge to the future. While it may be argued that hydraulic fracturing is not beneficial to the economy and harmful to the environment, fracking in the United States should not be banned because fracking is not only imperative to the growth of jobs and the economy, but it also does not put the surrounding environment in danger.

Hydraulic fracking is not only harmful to people but also toxic for the environment around the site. Extracting gasses deep in the earth's crust is not natural, neither is sucking 5-8 million gallons of water out of lakes. Eight million gallons might not seem like a lot because of how much the earth’s surface is covered in water, but there are over a million wells being fracked around the United States. Even if the fracking site is located in water deficient regions the companies will still pump out a large quantity of water from the local sources. For now, we have enough water for drinking and domestic use, but if the process doesn't stop or slow down we will affect the ecosystem. The composition of some fracking chemicals remains protected and disclosure through various "trade secret" exemptions under state or federal law, scientists analyzing fracked fluid have identified dangerous compounds to humans and the environment. For each frack, 70-300 tons of chemicals may be used, selected from a menu of up to 500 different chemicals. When the workers are down with the fracking mixture it is then stored on site in tanks and get reused until the fluid is be disposed of. When disposing of the flowback fluids, it's injected back into the ground deeper than the wellbore and left. In a recent report, USGS science for a changing world made stated “Wastewater disposal wells typically

the desire to achieve independence from foreign energy sources” (Ben Harris). “The environmental safety of fracking has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, they say, and the industry has a poor track record”(Ben

Over the past decade oil and gas producers have increasingly used hydraulic fracturing also known as fracking to extract oil and gas from the earth. Most people believe fracking is a new process but it has been around for over 100 years. Modern day fracking began in the 1990’s when George P Mitchell created a new technique by combining fracking with horizontal drilling. Since then, U.S. oil and gas production has skyrocketed. But the “new” perception of fracking leads people to incorrectly believe that fracking is temporary and that it somehow harms the environment. The truth is fracking is a reasonable energy solution if oversight and safeguards are used. In the last ten years fracking has improved conditions in the U.S. in three

In recent years, the subject of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking has been a constant subject of interest in the news media. The pros and cons of fracking are passionately debated. However, the public should become educated on the subject of fracking prior to choosing a side of the argument. In the scholarly article, “Super Fracking,” published in 2014, by Donald L. Trucotte, Eldridge M. Moores, and John B. Rundle, a detailed description of fracking is provided, followed by their analysis of current issues surrounding the controversy. According to Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle, fracking saves the consumer money. The wellhead cost to produce natural gas in January of 2000 was two dollars and sixty cents per one thousand cubic feet. At an alarming rate, the cost at the wellhead to produce natural gas had risen to eight dollars per one thousand cubic feet by January of 2006. Comfortingly, the wellhead cost dropped to two dollars and eighty-nine cents by the end of 2012. Impressively, gas production increase and price decrease over the time period are a result of fracking. In their article, Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle describe in great detail that hydraulic fracturing, most commonly referred to as fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth to fracture the layers of rock so that a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the oil or natural gas inside. This method of fracking has been used commercially for the last fifty years.

“Fracking” isn’t a word that most people are familiar with unless they are well informed or active in local government or natural gas extraction. “Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves extracting natural gas from shale formations underground” (Collier, Galatas, Harrelson-Stephens, 2008). During the process known as fracking, millions of gallons of water are shot underground into shale formations to help bring the natural gas trapped inside the formations to be released so that it can surface and become available for extraction. This is the technique that is used for traditional fracking methods. Although fracking increases the states natural gas production, it also carries some negative side effects that are affecting the state and its people.

Fracking has become a highly controversial and publicized topic in recent years due to rising concerns into the potential benefits and consequences of using hydraulic fracturing to retrieve natural gas and oil reserves. With concerns over water pollution, mismanagement of toxic waste and irreversible environmental damage mounting, the practice of fracking has

The most dangerous consequence of fracking is that hundreds of chemicals are blasted into the Earth’s crust, which creates cracks in the bedrock. Many times, these cracks lead to an aquifer, in which case, all of the water in the aquifer becomes contaminated with these chemicals (Jackson, 2014). Additionally, when the natural gas is being pumped out of the wells, methane is released into the atmosphere. A study conducted by NOAA found that approximately 4% of the methane is being released into the atmosphere. This same study found that methane pollution increases climate changes because it traps heat in the atmosphere 25 times more than carbon dioxide (Hoffman, 2016). Furthermore, fracking waste wells are the primary cause of the increase of earthquakes in the Central U.S. This is because these wells operate for a longer period of time, which means that they inject more “solid ‘cake’” into the Earth than the actual fracking process (USGS, n.d. and StateImpact, 2017). Finally, recent studies have found that people who live near a fracking site are at higher risk to develop respiratory problems, which is due to the increased levels of pollutants. These pollutants are not only affecting the people who live in close proximity to these sites, but to the workers, as well. The most common type of respiratory problem reported was lung

Safe natural gas fracturing or “fracking” is on the rise and our country is benefiting from in on several levels. From meeting energy needs to creating jobs and helping the economy, natural gas is an invisible miracle. Many precautions are taken during the fracking process in order to ensure it is safe as possible. Natural gas is something I work around every day due to the fact I work in the oilfield and the work I do is carried out during a “frac.” Many environmentalist and various people from different scientific fields argue that the benefits are not worth the risk.

While fracking has provided a cleaner fuel, there are many negative effects to the environment, the beef industry, human health and little positive effects. Some of these effects include; ground water being polluted with harmful chemicals, this polluted water can cause extreme sickness in humans. Fracking disrupts the habitats of animals and they have to leave the area to find clean water and a better food supply. Also it has been taking an effect on the beef industry in how farmers raise and sell their cattle. Fracking can have negative long term effects on the people living in the local area and make that area inhabitable.

In the article, “The truth about fracking,” Chris Mooney analyzes the effects of fracking by big companies looking to extract natural gas. Fracking is done by drilling deep underground, even 5000 feet at times, and shooting high pressure water loaded with chemicals to extract gases that serve as energy. The U.S. has been fracking for about 65 years and there is enough gas in U.S. soil to last many decades to come but there are many setbacks.

The issue of whether we should continue fracking without research has been widely debated around the world. The issue is important because it has fundamental environmental concerns and economic questions about the process of hydraulic fracturing. “Fracking” is the process of penetrating down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is absorbed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand, and chemicals are then inserted into the rock with compression which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well. Fracking fluid, which can be polluted with heavy metals like arsenic, known human carcinogens, has seeped into local waterways and polluted groundwater. People who live near fracking wells have a heightened danger of developing cancer, asthma, and other serious ailments associated with inhaling or ingesting the toxic chemicals involved in the fracking process. Countries approach fracking and researching much differently from each other. The injection of fluid into shale beds at high pressure to extract petroleum resources has been happening across the United States of America at rapid pace. By 2003, a gigantic public relations campaign was launched to lobby Congress to pass what is

This brings up the first issue against fracking that critics point to, which is the fact that it often occurs near established towns and cities where many live. This would be merely an issue of aesthetic unpleasantry occurring near peoples' homes (paving the way for this issue to join so many others under the theme of "Not-in-My-Backyard"-style public protests) were it not for the fact that the chemicals being pumped into the ground are not just limited to the veins they create, but in fact may seep into groundwater, contaminating it. These two issues, water contamination and the right to private property, are major sticking points when a company wishes to set up a rig near a human population close enough to be affected by it. In 2006, the state of Texas ruled in the case of Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust that damage to any property by or through the act of inducing hydraulic fracturing would not warrant a trespass claim. In 2012, four towns in Pennsylvania attempted to bar drillers from setting up infrastructure at the companies' discretion, with some to be built near homes and schools. Coastal Oil is being used as a precedent case now, but here the local courts ruled in favor of the towns, protecting their zoning rights. Going beyond the fact that oil rigs near homes can create what can certainly be called an unsafe, or at the very least unsightly,

When making the huge wells used to obtain natural gas, results show that five percent of the wells start leaking gas immediately. Studies show fracking “releases a cocktail of chemicals from a menu of more than 600 toxic substances, climate-changing methane, radium, and, of course, uranium” (Lennon 535). These multiple gases can cause serious health issues including asthma and even cancer. It is a widely-known fact that smoking can and does cause lung cancer. So, when one says it is okay to frack in various places, that is equivalent to one saying, “Smoking lighter cigarettes in the right place at the right time makes it safe to smoke” (Lennon 535). If one is inhaling various gases that are more dangerous than smoking, that shows how dangerous fracking is, and how harmful it is not only to the earth, but to many people’s health. If workers continue using hydraulic fracturing to retrieve gas like they are now, the effects will only worsen. There are ways to improve the dangerous effects of fracking today, and in the future. Various people have been able to figure out the mystery of how the dangerous fracking gases are able to escape to the air. The EPA has found dispersed occurrences where the cement, that is supposed to secure the gases from escaping, has many cracks in it (USA Today Editorial Board 546). With care of fracking comes great results such as: water not being contaminated,

Hydraulic fracturing is a process used in nine out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States, where millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are pumped underground to break apart the rock and release the gas. Scientists are worried that the chemicals used in fracturing may pose a threat either underground or when waste fluids are handled and sometimes spilled on the surface. The natural gas industry defends hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, as safe and efficient. Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-industry non-profit organization, claims fracking has been “a widely deployed as safe extraction technique,” dating back to 1949. What he doesn’t say is that until recently energy