Fracking Research Paper

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

We are currently in the second decade of this twenty-first century, and the United States has discovered a new type of energy. It is affordable, it burns somewhat cleaner than the other fossil fuels, and there’s so much of it that it could possibly last us over one-hundred years. Only a decade earlier, just the smallest sliver of the United States citizens had ever heard of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Presently, it is easily one of the most explosive environmental topics alight. Previously, wells that were built for this type of shale gas extraction have quickly spread through various areas of the country. This expansion, many argue, outpaces the science available to fully understand its potential impacts. Whether or not fracking is allowed to continue spreading without vast harm to the environment is one of the many questions researchers

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.

Human health and environmental integrity are both at risk from fracking. However, it allows America to be self-sufficient in an energy driven world. In the end, the debate comes down to whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits. In his interview, Josh Fox brings up firsthand accounts of what fracking does to humans, animals, and the environment. Fox tells the story of Debbie May, a land owner who allowed oil companies to frack on her land. May owns serval cats and a horse, all of whom started losing hair and weight since the fracking started (Fox). This is on top of the fact that in several homeowners in various areas found that their water would light on fire after fracking started (Fox). Lastly, in Colorado, benzene is found in

Hydraulic fracking has been known to release ‘more than 650 chemicals”( source 3), because of this people who are living ‘near these wells fear their health may be harmed” ( source 3). Even though hydraulic fracking has not caused any known health problems there is still the threat that could come soon when more and more well build up. This could also harm the wildlife and could cause their habitat to be destroyed.

While the government states that fracking poses little threat to the environment, Wheeler is absolutely correct when stating that there is indeed a significant threat, as there is a copious amount of evidence that supports this. After viewing Fox’s documentary and reading various articles on fracking, there is no doubt that the quality of water and wildlife in the affected areas are at a serious risk. Wayne Smith, a farmer in Clearville, Pennsylvania, earned a large sum of money after leasing his 105-acre farm to a gas company for drilling, however, he now is regretting that decision. As a result of the drilling performed on his property, Smith realized that, “his livestock mysteriously dropped dead after having motor-skill breakdowns; a veterinarian said the deaths could be attributed to arsenic, high levels of which were found in water on Smith’s property” (Bateman 38). This threat to the wildlife has an overwhelming affect on those who rely on their livestock as their income. This lost income, as a result of fallen livestock, hits these families hard. Not only can they not drink their water, but they are also now faced with their families livelihood disappearing. Debbie May, a resident that Fox interviewed in his documentary, also experienced significant health problems with her animals. Fox describes the conditions of her cats by stating, “their hair was falling out” and

the positive greatly. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is the process of drilling into

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as "Fracking", is drilling into the ground for gas. This process injects over 500 chemicals into the ground which sometimes reaches peoples water supply. When the water becomes polluted it can harm not only humans, but animals. In Gasland ,Josh Fox talks to people about their problems with Fracking and goes in depth about the damage it is doing.

Fracking, or the removal of natural gas from shale, has rapidly grown in popularity and is predicted to overcome coal as the nation’s top power source. Even though burning natural gas releases less carbon dioxide than coal or diesel, fracking releases methane into the atmosphere and the increase in storage accidents over the past few years support Emily Schwartz Greco’s claim on the dangers of fracking and the need for a change in public opinion over fracking.

Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking” is something that has been prevalent in the news in recent times. It has revolutionised the energy industry in the US and now there are various companies competing as drilling companies suggest that trillions of cubic feet of shale gas may be recoverable from underneath parts of northern England. As many of our coal powered power stations are coming to the end of their lives, alternative sources of energy need to be found. However, there has been mass protest, due to the environmental and social impact of the fracking process.

Hydraulic fracking is vertical well bores are drilled thousands of feet into the earth, through sediment layers, the water table, and shale rock formations in order to reach the oil and gas. The drilling is then angled horizontally, where a cement casing is installed and will serve as a conduit for the massive volume of water, fracking fluid, chemicals and sand needed to fracture the rock and shale. In some cases, prior to the injection of fluids, small explosives are used to open up the bedrock. The fractures allow the gas and oil to be removed from the formerly impervious rock formations. Although fracking has technically been in existence for decades, the scale and type of drilling now taking place, deep fracking, is a new form of drilling

Within this scientific report, Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington underline the numerous flaws that hydraulic fracturing has on social, environmental and economic spheres. The introduction of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has brought upon not only poisonous contaminants into the water of several cities, but also a long-lasting detrimental effect on the natural resources that reside by the “fracking” sites. Furthermore, both Dutzik and Ridlington effectively demonstrate the lack of regulations for fracking, causing the problem only to worsen.

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