Hydraulic Fracturing

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 has become a highly controversial and publicized topic in recent years due to rising concerns into the potential benefits and consequences of using hydraulic fracturing to retrieve natural gas and oil reserves. With concerns over water pollution, mismanagement of toxic waste and irreversible environmental damage mounting, the practice of fracking has

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

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.

One of the most common arguments against fracking is that fracking should be banned being that it causes harmful effects on the human body. During the process of fracking, chemicals and methane gas are leaked out of the system and contaminate nearby groundwater. Unfortunately, many people are unaware of the fact that their water has been contaminated so they end up drinking it and causes them to become ill. Due to people drinking this contaminated groundwater, “There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water” (“What Goes”). Exposure of fracking chemicals to humans can also causes reproductive issues. Out of the hundreds of chemicals used in fracking, “20 to 30% cause reproductive, mutagenic, or cancerous

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 more disturbing to some, possible groundwater contamination is the claim that the methane released during the extraction process cancels out any of the assumed environmental benefits. Although the overall amounts are relatively low, methane has one-hundred and five times more warming impact pound for pound than carbon dioxide, and so a little really does go a long way when it comes to climate change. Not surprisingly, there is wide disagreement on how much methane is being leaked into the atmosphere as part of the fracking process.

These environmental and social harms develop because the oil and gas industries and the Native nations' governments externalize costs of environmental and social protections onto the public in order to reap the benefits of saved costs” all the harm to our water is real and only we the consumers can stop it..The U.S is a high user of fracking methods as it is the cheaper version to achieve natural gas . According to Shale gas and fracking: The Science Behind the Controversy, that number almost doubled to 510,000, by 2010. Each year about 13,000 new wells are drilled near safe drinking water and a study released in 2011 by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency that some drinking water that comes up from shallow wells near hydrofracking drilling sites in Pennsylvania had about 17 times as methane as those far away from drilling. Imagine the danger that this water can cause to people, one always thinks that natural water is good for use and that the government will not let companies contaminate our limited water

Fracking refers to the process of drilling into the earth, which is commonly referred to as hydraulic fracturing. This injection of water, sand, and chemicals especially in shale deposits releases oil or gas that has been trapped for many years that was initiated many years ago for the purpose of oil and gas extraction from the earth (Anderson and Bosselmann, 2013). The process can be carried out both vertically or horizontally such that it creates new pathways or extend already existing ones. The process causes a lot of controversy and at the same time, it acts as a potential key that will someday in the future unlock greater sources of energy (Bamberger and Oswald, 2014). This research therefore seeks to look at the positive aspects of the

Hydraulic fracturing, also referred to as fracking, remains a very controversial issue in the world today. Fracking, a widely debated technological innovation, involves drilling deep down into the Earth’s surface to obtain natural gas (Shuckman 1). Natural gas, a flammable substance produced deep within the Earth’s surface and exploited as fuel, is obtained by pumping water, sand and chemicals into open passages, which allows the natural gases to move into production wells (Shuckman 1). Hydraulic fracturing enables necessities such as heating, cooking and electricity for Americans; however, oppositionists claim that it harms the environment and the United State’s residents.

The global crisis surrounding energy needs grows in severity as time goes by and in order to solve it, scientists have created the innovative solution known as hydraulic fracturing (Source 5). Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as “fracking,” is a process that injects water, chemicals, sand, and other materials into layers of shale. The injected mixture cracks the layers of shale, releasing trapped natural gasses that can be collected (Source 1). Fracking occurs deep under the surface of the earth, miles below the groundwater that is accessed from drinking-water wells. In the mid-2000s, “fuel prices were rising rapidly” (Source 5). Hydraulic fracturing was a cheap solution that not only brought the world out of a state of emergency but made oil prices drop. The new method of gas collection grew the oil and gas industry, benefiting people all around the world. Fracking is a cheap, effective solution to global needs, but is under attack from skeptics who worry about environmental hazards. The claims against fracking not only have no real evidence but also risk destroying the jobs in the oil and gas industry as well as support for energy needs. Hydraulic fracturing is not only a cheap but a safe method that supports global needs surrounding both energy and jobs.

A relatively new process for extracting desired shale oil from the bowels of the earth seems to be shaking things up around operation sites. Environmentalists and oil tycoons have been debating for years over the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, since areas with a high concentration of fracking operations have been affected by several environmental problems. Though many scientists argue that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, the media and many environmentalists use these environmental problems around fracking sites as proof of the long term damage fracking causes. Although it has domesticated the oil industry and reduced usage of coal as a fuel source, fracking is undoubtedly related to many detrimental environmental impacts, such as water table pollution and increased seismic activity.

Unfortunately, the extent of the environmental risks that are associated with hydraulic fracturing are largely unknown. According to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, fracking may pose risks to air quality. This ‘wishy washy’ finding was because the studies that were reviewed were not taking into account the long-term, cumulative effects of this extractive process (“Oil and Gas” 2012). The increase in air pollutants, the reports found, were more likely a result of engine exhaust, emissions from diesel-powered pumps, gas that was vented or flared for operational reasons, and unintentional emissions from faulty equipment or storage areas for waste (“Oil and Gas” 2012). Not surprisingly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed also indicated that fracking only might put our water quality at risk. Fracking can cause the contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion, spills and releases of chemicals, or the underground migration of chemicals (“Oil and Gas” 2012). So we have oversight agencies that release reports siting cases that are understudied, yet in the meantime permits are still being

Texas was primarily an agricultural state until the discovery of the first commercially viable oil well in 1894. Since then, Texas has seen a massive boom in oil production and a sudden shift from an agricultural economy to one more dependent on oil. However, the insatiable hunger of oil eventually consumed most available shallow sources of oil. Only then did natural gas and its variants become a viable option, and with it the controversial technique of Hydraulic Fracturing.

In Figure 1, the graph shows how the percentage of wells and how much water can be used on during single fracturing job. It may not seem like much is being used, but 45% of fracturing wells tended to use over two million gallons per site, and there was approximately 2700 wells fractured in the data collected from 2010 to 2011 by the FracFocus database. The estimated average for hydraulic fracturing sites is the usage of five million gallons, which does not correlate with the graph correctly. Fracturing sites can be drilled more than once, so the average will tend to correlate correctly with being 5 million gallons.