Gasland Problem

“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.

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

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

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

First what is hydraulic fracking? Hydraulic fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are infused into the stone at high weight which permits the gas to stream out to the leader of the well. Vinik talks about the positive side of fracking but he fails to mention the harm fracking causes. Fracking wastewater contains high levels of radioactivity and other contaminants that wastewater treatments plants have had difficulty removing; this potentially contaminated wastewater can than be discharged into local rivers.In Pennsylvania, more than 3,000 gas fracking wells and allowed well locales are situated inside two miles of 320 day mind focuses, 67 schools and nine healing centers. Fracking is prohibited.excluded from key government water insurances, and elected and state controller have permitted unchecked extension of

First what is hydraulic fracking? Hydraulic fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are infused into the stone at high weight which permits the gas to stream out to the leader of the well. Vinik talks about the positive side of fracking but he fails to mention the harm fracking causes. Fracking wastewater contains high levels of radioactivity and other contaminants that wastewater treatments plants have had difficulty removing; this potentially contaminated wastewater can than be discharged into local rivers.In Pennsylvania, more than 3,000 gas fracking wells and allowed well locales are situated inside two miles of 320 day mind focuses, 67 schools and nine healing centers. Fracking is prohibited.excluded from key government water insurances, and elected and state controller have permitted unchecked extension of fracking, making broad natural

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

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.

Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) is the process of drilling into the ground and pumping sand, water, and fracking fluid at high pressures in order to extract natural shale gas that was previously unattainable. This process comes with environmental issues: the chemicals from the fracking fluid can contaminate nearby drinking water wells and harm the citizens of that area. Despite the fact that there have been several contaminated drinking water cases reported, there is little being done about this matter. This paper analyzes the available research that asserts why fracking is a dangerous process that should be banned immediately. The intended audience is my peers and instructor, as well as anyone interested in the debacle of fracking-caused water contamination that may come across this piece. As you are reading, I ask that you keep in mind that this is a very perplexing issue that has not been given much of an opportunity for true research and investigation. Therefore, the data discussed has not been officially proven or disproven to be directly related in every way to local fracking. However, the research gathered on the proposed danger of the Hydraulic Fracturing process is solely based on science that has already been proven as well as documented illnesses and symptoms from residents and contractors around or near fracking operation sites.

The documentary Gasland, directed and narrated by Josh Fox, tells the frightening story of corporate greed and a lack of concern for the negative effects of natural gas drilling called fracking. The story begins with Josh receiving a letter from a natural gas company seeking permission to drill on his family’s Pennsylvania estate in exchange for $100,000. In an effort to decide whether to accept the deal, Josh drives from state to state interviewing scientists, politicians and mostly working class people being affected by this method of natural gas extraction. In areas where people welcomed the additional income and allowed fracking on their property thinking this process was safe, they were now experiencing unclean underground water that is igniting, animals that are losing their hair

Citing the documentary “Gasland”, the article brings to account instances in the past where people who lived close to fracking sites had experienced sickness and foul-smelling water. The documentary had then influenced New York State’s decision to ban fracking. By citing this documentary, the article makes the reader to not fully accept the given conclusion. Without going into great detail, the article mentions a couple of environmental groups questioning of the legitimacy of the study, considering that the study uses data generated by oil and gas companies. This also brings to question the limitations of the data used. The article reads unbiasedly towards both sides of the fracking industry, it recognizes the conclusions of the EPA study but still lets the reader know that there is still a lot that has not been explored in the topic.

* 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.

In December 2011, the federal Environmental Protection Agency concluded that fracking operations could be responsible for groundwater pollution.“Today’s methods make gas drilling a filthy business. You know it’s bad when nearby residents can light the water coming out of their tap on fire,” says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. What’s causing the fire is the methane from the drilling operations. A ProPublica investigation in 2009 revealed methane contamination was widespread in drinking water in areas around fracking operations in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. The presence of methane in drinking water in Dimock, Pa., had become the focal point for Josh Fox’s investigative documentary, Gasland, which received an Academy Award nomination in 2011 for Outstanding Documentary; Fox also received an Emmy for non-fiction directing. Fox’s interest in fracking intensified when a natural gas company offered $100,000 for mineral rights on property his family owned in Milanville, in the extreme northeast part of Pennsylvania, about 60 miles east of Dimock.

While vertical wells do yield gas, they are mainly used as a base to connect several horizontal wells, which is where the money lies in the industry. After drilling, about “2 million to 10 million gallons of water [is used] to extract the gas” (Marsa 3-4). However, high pressured water alone will not break away the shale rock, therefore sand is added to enable further fracturing. The controversial issue fueling the debate is the third substances added to the water which allow the natural gas to escape for collection. “A cocktail of friction-reducing lubricants [are used] to make the water slick enough to slide through the pipes swiftly” (Marsa 4). A geochemist by the name of Tracy Bank conducted a study at SUNY Buffalo which concluded that the lubricant contained an abundance of toxic metals, “including uranium, barium, chromium, zinc and arsenic” (Marsa 2). This is just a short list of the negative compounds used in fracking. It is likely that the public will never get the full story as to the composition of the lubricants, as major fracking companies refuse to release that information, “claiming that doing so would reveal trade secrets” (Rahman 1). So where do these contaminants end up? After reaching the surface, the waste is emptied into tanks for storage. However, sometimes ponds are also used to hold the pollutants, therefore releasing the harmful toxins into runoffs. Once the gas has

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