Fracking Is Upsetting The Way Of Life

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.

The mismanagement of the practice has the potential to create environmental damage such as water contamination, radioactive spills, and increased seismic activity that could cost thousands in dollars in damage. Furthermore, the unintended consequences of fracking can have detrimental effects on the environmental. The potential for water contamination can pose both an immediate and long term risk to environmental stability, including landscape distortion, inhabitability and ecological displacement. This contamination of drinking water can also be detrimental to the human environment, limiting the amount of safe water available for both the residential and commercial human environment. With the increase of fracking, the level of disapproval for the practice has only mounted. Concerns including overconsumption of

The actual technique involves “pumping a slurry of water, sand and chemicals underground to fracture shale formations and release hydrocarbons” ("Fracking", 2013, p. 276). Modern procedures use a high degree of manipulation in order to extract the natural gas. The natural gas from fracking is dispersed in rock, and can only be retrieved by using specialized removal techniques (Palliser, 2012). These specialized techniques have many unintended consequences. For instance, the current method of fracking may cause the issue of flowback. Flowback occurs when the internal pressure of the rock formation causes the injected watery, chemical mixture to return to the surface with other naturally occurring substances (Palliser, 2012). This flowback is often injected back underground or can be processed by wastewater treatment plants, where it is later discharged as surface water (Palliser, 2012). Indisputably, the disposal and generation of flowback is one of the main concerns regarding hydraulic fracking. The wastewater developed from fracking procedures is often inappropriately handled and is sometimes sprayed onto rural roads and forests (Finkel & Hays, 2013). As a result, the surface water may come in contact with living organisms and can cause a plethora of issues. For fracking opponents, their driving force is the ill effects of fracking on the environment and overall health. Similarly, the possibility of drinking or coming in contact with chemically laden byproducts

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

If the statistics, or the people in tears did not convince you then this absolutely will. Mike Markham, Marsha Mendenhall, and Amee Ellsworth are some of the families who could light their water on fire. Yes, in gasland, these three people along with a few others could literally stick a lighter under their faucet while it was running and watch it burst into flames. What else does one need to see the immense contamination being caused by fracking. The Ellsworth family were interviewed and they told a story about a time where the company which was drilling close to their home told them nothing was wrong with their water. They said, " I told that man, nothing is wrong with my water? Wait here and ill get you some." I came back and he wouldn’t drink it."

Few issues have recently gotten as much attention as the energy extraction activities involving a controversial procedure called "fracking." As reports of drinking water becoming tainted with fracking fluid flood the news, both oil and gas companies as well as environmental groups are presenting competing "facts" about the effects of drilling on ground water.

What is fracking? Fracking, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is to force water, sand, and chemical fluids into a crack or seam in a subterranean level of rock so that natural gas or oil may be harvested as it escapes through the crack. Fracking causes many harmful effects to the environment, but it does help the economy in a tremendous way. Fracking can cause loads of chemicals out into the air and into the water supply and it can also cause small earthquakes and tremors. It is useful for the economy because there is a lot of money to be made in this new industry and it provides an extreme amount of jobs and opportunity for the public. Although it is very helpful, fracking is more wrong because the damage done to our planet is much more important and concerning compared to the notion of quick cash.

An Analysis of State of Wyoming, et al. v. United States Dept. of the Interior

Another reason why the United States must make fracking illegal is because it can have a negative effect on water sources. During fracking, the fluid, which consists of over 596 toxic chemicals, is pumped into the ground, soon after, once all of the gas is extracted from the operation, some of that fluid stays deep underground, and becomes increasingly toxic as it comes picks up radioactivity, or other underground contaminants (White). These fluids can sink into aquifers and turn water into a noxious mix, even the water that comes back up is almost untreatable after coming in contact with these chemicals (Griswold). Although the dangers are well known, it is no surprise that water sources have already been contaminated due to inattentiveness.

This paper explores the hydraulic fracturing process, exactly what it is, what the fracturing process does to the earth and the surrounding environment in addition, to the consequences. Hydraulic fracturing is fracturing of rock by pressurization. This process by which oil and natural gas can be forced from the earth. The hydraulic fracturing process takes millions of gallons of clean water, sand, chemicals and pumps them underground at high pressure to break apart rock to release gas and or oil. My research has led me to the discovery that there are as many proponents for fracking as that are those that oppose the process. One thing

I like the way you support your answers with real examples. But you didn’t expand your response to the question number 4. Utilitarian’s would view the consequences of permitting or prohibiting fracking on private lands. Most of the fracking in the U.S. is done on private land. Allowing property owners to use their property for the purpose of fracking gives benefits to the property owners, but it causes a lot of harm to the environment and neighborhood. Because fracking of oil and gas causes water pollution and increase the earthquake activity. (Reuters). In 2015 the largest earthquake scientifically linked to fracking operation occurred in British Columbia. (Prince George Citizen). If the government prohibit the property owners for using their

In today’s operational and global economy, energy is considered one the most sought out and fundamental commodities. While an individual’s environmental role plays a vital role in their overall health; there are more specific geographic areas having instrumental actions that take part in shaping an individuals’ health. Where and who the supplies come from as well as the amount of production often determine how much influence they have over growing nations as well as having an impact on the global economy. Unfortunately, people who live near toxic wastes or byproducts of industrialized energy often have a body that is in constant

Over one and a half million people have watched the video where the family holds a match under their faucet claiming that the water was polluted with methane due to the local fracking operation yet not all 1.8 million people have investigated fracking and if it is a benefit or danger. But some industry professionals have and provided their insight into the fracking process. Professionals such as Fred Dews of the Brookings Institute who argues that there are numerous economic benefits to fracking and that is positively effects more people than you’d think while Chemical Engineer Ross Topliff of Tops Engineering believes that the potential health issues outweigh any benefits that come with the process but the fact remains that the dangers are

Since the implementation of this hydrofracking, this industry has grown by more than 23 times in the past 20 years (Wang and Krupnick, 2013). This method applies fracking fluid, which is a mix of water, sand, and chemicals pumped at high pressure down the wells. This fluid create fissures in the rock formations which allow gas to escape, but usually uses between 2 and 8 million gallons of water per well (Gopalakrishnan and Klaiber, 2014). Chemicals often make up 0.5 to 2 percent of fracking fluid, which for a four million gallon project would result in 80 to 330 tons of chemicals per well (Hazen and Sawyer, 2009). The wastewater byproduct of this process is a cause of environmental concern. About 15 to 80 percent of total water volume used returns to the surface containing heavy metals, naturally occurring radioactive materials, and a plethora of chemicals (Throupe, Simons, and Mao, 2013). The proper disposal for this contaminated water is a negative externality of this process and source of

Another problem that we know exists with hydraulic fracturing is the contamination of the water, the ground, and the air around the sites (Goldman pg. 2). It has been shown that “…residents living near the hydraulic fracturing sites are increasingly worried that the drilling process might be contaminating their well water, polluting streams, and releasing toxic gases into the air (Hobson).” Water sources, as well as the soil, are often polluted from flowback fluid and from production brine (Hydro-Fracking pg.4). Flowback fluid is “the contaminated fluid that returns to the surface during the drilling process, and is estimated to be between 9% - 35% of the fluids injected during