I became interested in hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking”, after watching the documentary Gasland II. It chronicled the experiences of those who inhabit areas in proximity to active fracking wells in Pennsylvania. Detailing how their lives had been affected by the drilling. Focusing primarily on water contamination and illnesses that potentially could be linked to the chemicals used in the drilling process. By the end, I had questions about the actual process and what chemicals were used. I was also left wondering about the existence of environment laws and monitoring, if any, which would have ensured the use of only substances safe for humans as well as the environment. Why would this process have been allowed if it …show more content…
The PR firms expound the virtues of natural gas and would have us to believe “the negative side-effects caused by fracking are insignificant” (Larson 2). They rattle off information on how natural gas is a clean burning source of energy and how it is now responsible for 30% of electricity production, as well as heating in half of the homes in U.S.; therefore lessening our dependency on foreign suppliers. All positives attributes, granted, but at the end of the day fracking is a business; big business whose primary focus is keeping their shareholders happy with increase revenue. Unfortunately in their quest to make the almighty dollar, they are putting human lives as well as the environment at risk with the use of chemicals that are toxic, some are known carcinogens. To add insult to injury, the government, who is supposed to protect the interests of all, as opposed to the interests of a few, granted the energy companies an exemption from the laws meant to provide protection to humans as well as two irreplaceable resources, water and air. Granting this exemption is a clear indication that public health and the preservation of local ecology were less of a priority than making a profit. The list of ingredients used in fracking fluid is long and varied. Some are common, such as salt and citric acid, some are unexpected like coffee and walnut hulls, while others are toxic. A list released by a Congressional committee states
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.
In recent years there has been great concern over the growing demand for energy, and the lack of non-renewable energy resources to meet the demand in the future. In addition, the question of “sustainability”—the ability to balance social, economic, and environmental needs in energy production to meet both current and long-term requirements—has come to the fore. It is clear that America must expand energy production quickly, and that we must develop renewable, sustainable energy sources to meet long-term demand and protect our future. There are many proposed solutions, such as wind and solar power. But the technology for these resources is not yet fully developed, making them, at best, low-output alternatives. Because renewable sources are
The added chemicals help reduce problems such as a buildup of bacteria and mineral deposits (OSU). Fracking is a very water intensive process and uses up to four million gallons of fresh water for each well, and with about thirty-five thousand wells in the United States, fracking consumes the same amount of water as five million people (Schmidt). Most of the water used remains trapped down in the rocks where the natural gas previously was, but about thirty to seventy percent of the water resurfaces as what is called “flowback”. Flowback water is full of minerals, salts, and often times some radioactive materials.
“Fracking: the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc., so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas”(Google). Ten years ago no one would have thought hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” would have caused such environmental harm; infecting public and private water systems, cutting down national parks, and causing extraneous health problems.
As the pace of shale gas drilling has accelerated in recent years, so have environmental concerns. Incidents such as a 2007 home explosion in Bainbridge, OH, the 2008 groundwater contamination on Wind River Indian Reservation in Pavilion, WY, and the 2008 chemical poisoning of an emergency room nurse in Durango, CO, have intensified the debate over regulation of fracking.10 As a result, new laws regulating fracking activities have
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
It is a fact that in Wyoming they are finding contamination in water tables as far away from fracking as forty miles. You tube videos of people igniting their tap water are numbered in the hundreds. These gas companies are poisoning our environment and destroying people’s entire way of life just to make money. Now most of us on some level are concerned about the environment, you don’t have to live in a tree and only eat organic fruits and vegetables to care about the future of earth. You just have to open your eyes and become comfortable to the fact that big corporations dictate government. These people live to make money, at all costs.
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
That is more people who live in New York City and in Michigan. Drilling and extraction of natural gas are known to be seriously toxic to humans and animal. A few of the many chemicals are hydrochloric acid, benzene and formaldehyde. Which all have a serious effect for human health and wildlife. Fracking can cause birth defects, cancer, bloody noses, asthma, diarrhea, dizziness, migraines, nerve pain, and skin rashes. Fracking causes earthquakes more and more frequent and the cause is almost certainly fracking and the disposal of wastewater. The earthquakes caused by fracking have not caused much damage yet, but with a call for more drilling. Seismologists are learning more about faults no one knew existed. Fracking has contaminated lots of peoples water some people have complained to be able to light their water on fire because of large amount of methane gas. It has added to the problem of are air
Hydraulic fracturing, a method of extracting oil and natural gas that is better known as fracking, has received extensive media coverage over the years. This attention has come from both supporters and detractors of this contentious issue, and in the process the debate has been increasingly sensationalized. However, even when looking past the publicity, a careful examination of the scientific and legal implications of fracking reveals that the process carries a number of risks. Thanks to these inherent risks, as well as the behavior exhibited by the companies responsible for fracturing operations, allowing fracking to continue unchecked would lead to detrimental conditions that far outweigh the potential benefits.
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
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