Is Fracking Cause Environmental Injustice?

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, 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 definition of “environmental racism” is laid out in Matthew Desmond and Mustafa Emirbayer’s “Race in America” as, “any environmental policy, practice, or directive, that disproportionately disadvantages (intentionally or unintentionally) nonwhite communities” (Desmond and Emirbayer 196). These communities are often in close proximity to environmental hazards, are targets for waste dumps, and are at higher risk for harmful air and water pollution (196). Environmental racism has been formed over the decades, through the processes of redlining, blockbusting, and other housing discrimination practices, in efforts to keep people of

One of the major drawbacks with fracking is due to the cause of widespread hazardous pollution within waterways surrounding the sites. The steel casings cannot guarantee prevention of chemical leakage dispersing into the adjacent soil holding tons of ground water. This is the same water that makes its way into our wells, and finally into our mouths. Furthermore, more than half of the wastewater used in the fracking process is flowed directly into a ready-made reservoir pits that sit in wait for evaporation. This wastewater gradually sinks into the ground, for the evaporation takes quite some time. The health risks posed by this dangerously hazardous output of pollution into our drinking water and nearby waterways is widely felt. Water quickly turns to metallic mush, goes black, and even becomes flammable in other cases. Fracking is upsetting the way of life for so many out there and yet they still refuse to answer for these wrongdoings. Mike Markham is forced to venture into town to buy his water supply due to his well water being deemed unfit for consumption (“GasLand”). Jeff and Wranda Locker’s washer was flooded with black water not soon after a fracking site began drilling. They placed faith in the energy company when they supplied them with a reverse osmosis water treatment system that was supposed to filter out the chemicals. However, later they found out that the system didn’t remove glycol ethers which damages brain cells and may well be the cause of Wranda’s fading

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

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are an important component in health care reform, but do they really bring efficiency to the practice? The extent to which practices use EHRs vary from the very basic (entering clinical notes and viewing results) to the intermediate (using e-Prescribing to indicate adverse drug prevention and provide suggestions for alternative drugs) to the advanced use (including lab and radiology order entry with testing guidance, capture of electronic charge, and evidence-based guidelines).

In “Fracking” authors Michael D. Holloway and Oliver Rudd cover the technology and methods of hydraulic fracturing while explaining the consequences it has on our health, agriculture, and the planet. The two set out to expose the truths and fallacies regarding impacts of the controversial topic. Throughout the book excerpt, the authors reiterate their goal of not making false claims; “the goal is to educate and share insight.” The authors work to relieve the public of common hydraulic fracking related misconceptions brought on by the media. While the majority of citizens opposed to fracking report contamination to their water source and air, the authors’ collected studies reveal that these problems are not unique to fracking; they occur whenever

The process in fracking involves injecting water and chemicals into the ground, which can have negative effects on the water quality. Carpenter (2016) states that up to 40% of the water that is put into the ground turns into produced water (i.e., a byproduct of the fracking process) and the produced water contains unsafe chemicals (e.g., radium, uranium) that may not be removed by water treatment. Numerous chemicals found in the produced water are known or possible carcinogens that heighten the chance of developing leukemia (Elliott et al., 2017), which is one of the most common childhood cancers (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2016). Moreover, fracking affects children in underserved communities, which is referred to as environmental injustice (Johnston, Werder, & Sebastian, 2016). In their study, Johnston et al. (2016) discovered that disposal wells for water used in the fracking process were more likely to be built close to communities of color or low-income in Southern

Hydraulic fracking is putting a pressurized mixture of water, sand, and chemicals deep into the Earth to release oil and other gas. Not only does hydraulic fracking use enough water annually to supply five million people a year, but it some environmentalist believe it may contaminate the water (Dechert, 2015). In 2016, The State Senate committee in Florida turned down a bill to regulate hydraulic fracking even though nearly eight counties and cities either ban or opposes this new technique (Alvarez, 2016). Haliburton Co. is regulating themselves by setting a goal to use twenty-five percent less water for hydraulic fracking by the end of 2014. Some also believe that hydraulic fracking is not harming the water supply and is actually decreasing the amount of water used to sustain an oil driven society (Fracking Does Not, 2015). According to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2015, there are no “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” (Fractured Thinking, 2016). No matter the case, city officials and corporations are going to have to work together to reduce the amount of contaminated water in this

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.

This movement is centered around two issues which are the, “siting and expansion of hazardous and undesirable facilities in poor and minority communities and the effort to remediate, relocate, and/or pay damages to members of poor and minority communities affected by pollution.” (Allen 2007).

Oil has been an important resource for life, and humans have been looking for places to extract it ever since its discovery. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method of extracting oil and gases by drilling deep underground. A water based mixture, consisting of millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals, is injected at high pressures, fracturing rocks and allowing these oils to be collected. Fracking has been documented in several California counties, ranging from urban cities, such as Los Angeles, to rural areas in Central Valley. The underlying question is whether fracking should continue, as it provides the state and country with vital resources, but poses a great threat to the environment.

Fracking promoters say safe hydraulic fracking doesn’t threaten drinking water. They also disprove that the water used in hydraulic fracturing ends up as surface spills. There are three ways reported for waste water disposal including “injecting in permitted disposal wells in accordance with Underground Injection Control Regulations, delivered to water treatment facilities depending on permitting, and reused/recycled” (“Pioneering America’s Energy Future”). These three types of disposals are considered safe as long as agencies are regulating hydraulic fracturing companies carefully. The Oil and Gas Conservation Act makes oil and gas a state priority, allowing companies the legal right to fracture. It is harder to judge whether regulations are actually set in place when government wants to favor the creation of jobs and economic boost rather than worrying about the health of communities affected by

In the research report “Coal Blooded: Putting Profits before People” by the NAACP, they explore devastating health, economic, and environmental effects of coal pollution in low-income communities and communities of color. The NAACP and their allies ranked 378 coal fired power plants nationwide based on their Environmental Justice Performance. They discovered the average income of communities surrounding coal plants are lower than the nationwide average and almost half are people of color. In addition to rankings, they have asserted coal pollution isn’t just an environmental issue, but a civil and human rights issue. “This report will help put a human face on the life and death issue of coal pollution,” stated Executive Director of Indigenous

Last year alone, oil and gas companies put hundreds of millions of gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the earth. Many of these fluids were found to contain harmful chemicals such as carcinogens- substances that directly cause cancer. This is why hydraulic fracking has been the topic of heated debate over the past few years. This process of drilling for natural gas has become increasingly popular over the past decade, and has in turn produced many questions about the safety of its wells and the chemicals that are used in drilling. Under current regulations, hydraulic fracking is permitted to be conducted at drilling sites that are located very close to residential areas. The chemicals used in the drilling process have been leaking out of wells, and have contaminated drinking water for some communities. In addition, it pollutes the air by putting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Concerned about the safety of fracking, cities such as Longmont have shown great opposition to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA)’s regulations. In fact, Longmont citizens voted to put a ban on fracking within city limits in 2012. This ban has been met with retaliation from COGA, who sued the city because of the ban. If fracking isn’t allowed to be banned by cities that don’t want it, then the regulations need to change in order to make the practice both prosperous and safe for the community.