Fracking Waste Of Fracking Wastewater Disposal

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

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

Hydraulic fracking isn 't all good though, there are many controversial things about it. First off, water contamination is a hazard. There are many ways that the water supply could be contaminated by fracking. One way is by groundwater entering through cracks that fracking has made. The water solution that 's pumped into the ground is a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals. Water and sand make up 98% of the mixture, while the remaining 2% is chemicals. Although fracking companies have never realised the chemicals used, scientists studying wastewater have found many harmful additives. A few of these are benzene, toluene, and many acids, all of which pose huge threats to humans. For each fracking well, more than 8 million liters of

Thesis: Today I will discuss a very important issue that is happening in our own backyard. Hydraulic Fracturing, also known as “Fracking”, is contaminating our drinking water, all in the name of “Energy Reform”.

Fracking is a complex political topic; nonetheless, fracking is showing a positive impact on the United States economy and leaving a harmful footprint behind the environment. In addition, consumers are experiencing a significant amount of savings due to the overwhelming supplies of oil; thus, the revolution in new technology is triggering an improper fracking system that contributes to airborne pollution and water contamination. Higher authorities should implement the concepts of sustainability and ethical views of large corporations and businesses to protect the consumer’s safety.

Hydraulic Fracturing is a process where high-pressure fracking fluids are forced into rich shale to extract natural resources. These fracking fluids are a mixture of proppants and “chemical additives such as surfactants, biocides, fiction reducers and other compounds meant to help in the process of freeing the trapped gas”. In addition, the million gallons of water injected along with the fracking fluids return as flowback water and this produced water have the “potential to mix with nearby aquifers and surface water”. As a result, there is a considerable amount of public concern about water contamination due to this process of hydrofracking (Thurman, Ferrer, Biotevogel & Borch, 2014).

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.

The mantra of the gas industry is there has never been a proven instance of well water contamination caused by the fracking process, which so far remains true. Most of the problems documented in "Gasland" including in Dimock resulted from the drilling, not the fracking procedure. But that does not mean fracking fluids pose no threat to our water supplies. They contain some chemicals that are harmful even in very tiny amounts. The fluid that comes back up out of the ground is saturated with salts, is sometimes radioactive and often contains harmful heavy metals like arsenic. Carl Kirby, a geologist at Bucknell who does not appear in the film, says the prospect of fracking fluids migrating up through thousands of feet of rock to contaminate water wells is “unlikely but not impossible.”The history of what’s gone wrong thus far in Pennsylvania suggests accident and human error pose as much risk as the fracking process, an angle Fox does not explore. Several weeks ago, a truck full of fracking brine overturned at an intersection about eight miles from my family home. The spill was contained by local volunteer firemen, county emergency responders and the drilling company, and it did not contaminate the small

In addition to this, the water mixtures used in fracking contain an average of "200 000 litres of acids, biocides, scale inhibitors, friction reducers and surfactants... many of which are toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic." (Howarth et al. 2013 pp. 272). Moreover, there are concerns about the release of heavy metals, hydrocarbons and natural salts which are trapped in shale. There have been concerns about these chemicals contaminating drinking water. This can occur via the leaking of fracking fluids or gas into ground-water or streams, blowouts or leaky wellheads (Jackson et al. 2014 pp. 337-338). These concerns also affect the environment, with risks of damage to ecosystems. In the US, the 'Halliburton Loophole ' has been particularly controversial, as it allows companies to bypass the Safe Drinking Water Act and not disclose possible contaminants used in fracking (Howarth et al. 2013 pp.272). Finally, fracking water cannot be reused in fracking or elsewhere due to the contaminants present (De Avila 2015).

The con of theses chemicals is one of the main concern in fracking. For starters the companies involved in fracking do not have to disclose any of the chemicals additives they used, this leads to them being confidential at times. Not to mention they change from well to well. Some of the common ones used are Benzene(C₆H₆) and methanol (CH3OH) which are both toxic and suspected carcinogens. Many of the other chemical pose health risks and can also be toxic. The amount of toxic chemicals makes this impossible to treat in chemical treatment plants. Pennsylvania recently passed a law as a result saying that fracking industry can’t send their wastewater to municipal treatment plants. Disposing is the next best option. They are often poured back into the drained wells or deep into aquifers. Aquifers are complex and are not fully understood systems. This matched with shortcuts and overall incompetence can lead to contaminating ground water which leads to nearby towns having problems with their drinking waters. Although, it is hard to say how many cases of this have happened. Wells that have been dried up and abbonded have been sourced with leaking toxic chemicals into the water. Also, some studies suggest that the water disposal seeps into existing fault lines and in turn, it causing more earthquakes in that region. Even ohio has seen an increase in earthquakes

* Even fluid get into aquifer, it is not as toxic as other wastewater discarded from other daily activities. EPA claimed the fracking process is safe.

Fracking supporters argue recycled wastewater or brackish water could be used rather than clean water, but this isn’t always available in the quantities needed and in 2011 this only counted for 1/5 of the water

The main environmental effects that hydraulic fracking could have on a local environment are largely, ground water contamination, aesthetic appeal, and the risk of a seismic activity increase in the local area. All three of these issues would, clearly, have a negative impact on a local environment. The contamination of ground water is a legitimate question to ask and concern to be addressed. When comparing conventional oil drilling to non-conventional oil drilling in terms of water contamination, the unconventional method of fracking looks to be safer. The drilling of fracking is much deeper within the earth than more conventional drilling methods. There are several impermeable levels of rock and material that prevents gas and oil from reaching the water table. With conventional drilling, there is an impermeable level of rock between the gas and oil pocket, however, it is much closer to the water table than the location of the fracking. Even though the actual location of the extraction of the oil and gas is generally further from the water table, studies have shown that it is probable that water can still be contaminated through fracking. “The authors of the PNAS study conclude that the contamination they document is likely the result of “… poor well construction.” This quote suggests that the reason for the contamination in the ground water is because of poor construction of wells due to demand and production rates. Another view comes from

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