One of the things that the commission need to keep in mind while deciding will be that the drilling sites will be located near the Ogallala Aquifer. This is one of the biggest aquifers in the world which means polluting the aquifer could have a large impact on hundreds of people’s drinking water. The commission has assured the community that they have used better equipment to protect the pipes so they do not leak. However, the members of the community have little to no faith after seeing how filthy the water still is that’s in the ground. However, with the new equipment the oil company has promised to use the Nebraska residents might feel safer (Hayden). Along with dirty water, community members all over the country have concerns that …show more content…
One of the key factors in solving the problem would be to put in place much stricter regulations for companies to follow. If the government made companies work in a more responsible they would have to pay more attention to where they are drilling, leading to less drilling sites in neighborhoods or close to people’s homes. The regulations on zoning could cause a chain reaction of problem solvers, if the fracking wells start to be farther away from homes the water that people are drinking will less likely be contaminated. For Oklahoma there are not yet regulations on where to frack like other states. Drilling is taking place on what is called “basement” rock, this is believed to be the cause of the tremblors. This is just one place where a little change in law can be a big change for a community. Another easy solution would be regulating the chemicals companies are allowed to use, the chemical cocktails used are commonly filled with acids, detergents and poisons that are not regulated by federal laws. Natalie Starkey, a writer for The Guardian, writes to explain that even areas that are not prone to earthquakes may still experience them due to drilling. Companies have denied having any ties to the rising number of quakes. The earthquakes that will appear will be very dangerous in most cases. The lack of regulation can be tied back into this issue since there are no laws on where companies can
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.
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
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
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” 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
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.
Fracking is a major issue in our world right now, and yet it is still being done. Not everyone knows what fracking is, so let me explain. “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 injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out of the head of the well” (Shukman, David (2015), “What is fracking and why is it controversial?” http://www.bbc.com). There are tons of resources being put into fracking that is actually causing problems of its own. “Each gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site” (N/A (2015),”Dangers of fracking”.
Fracking has become a nation wide debate and one that doesn’t seem to have an end. The state of North Carolina is one of the most involved areas of the fracking process. “North Carolina is sitting on top of large natural gas reserves (WRAL 1).” For this reason, many natural gas companies come to North Carolina for business. This helps the states economy because it produces more income and creates more jobs. The only problem is that the hydraulic fracking process has a reputation of contaminating local drinking water. This causes controversy with the citizens in cities such as Raleigh. Many cities welcome fracking while others try to completely ban it. The worst problem with fracking is that there seems to be no alternatives for it.
This brings up the first issue against fracking that critics point to, which is the fact that it often occurs near established towns and cities where many live. This would be merely an issue of aesthetic unpleasantry occurring near peoples' homes (paving the way for this issue to join so many others under the theme of "Not-in-My-Backyard"-style public protests) were it not for the fact that the chemicals being pumped into the ground are not just limited to the veins they create, but in fact may seep into groundwater, contaminating it. These two issues, water contamination and the right to private property, are major sticking points when a company wishes to set up a rig near a human population close enough to be affected by it. In 2006, the state of Texas ruled in the case of Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust that damage to any property by or through the act of inducing hydraulic fracturing would not warrant a trespass claim. In 2012, four towns in Pennsylvania attempted to bar drillers from setting up infrastructure at the companies' discretion, with some to be built near homes and schools. Coastal Oil is being used as a precedent case now, but here the local courts ruled in favor of the towns, protecting their zoning rights. Going beyond the fact that oil rigs near homes can create what can certainly be called an unsafe, or at the very least unsightly,
Texas the great lone star state, full of natural beauty that ranges from the majestic big bend national park in the Brewster County on the refreshing shores of the South Padre Island, Texas owns a plentiful quantity of natural resources, nevertheless the process of hydraulic fracturing commonly known as “fracking” taking place in Texas, will destroy our natural resources, turning our vast land of splendor into a methane ridden wasteland. However this is the time to unite against these companies that value money over sustainability. In the first place, fracking consist on drilling using a pressurized water, sand, plus a mix of chemicals to release gas from the rocks beneath the earth, this usually happens at 10,000 feet of depth, although this
There are several solutions so as to prevent any tragic impacts on the earth and public health of the fracking process. First of all, in order to set stronger clean air standards that reduce methane leakage to a minimum level and prevent dangerous smog-forming and cancer-causing toxic air and water pollution, a new bill, the Fracturing Air Pollution Standards Act, must be applied.
Energy production has been one of the most paramount forces that have influenced the actions of the United States as a country. Wars have been fought and treaties have been signed over the opportunity for oil. However, there has been a recent transition to cheaper and domestic energy sources of energy. Oklahoma has become a microcosm of these events that have occurred. With the discovery of natural gas reserves throughout the state, hydraulic fracturing has seen a boom in utilization. However, this has been largely detrimental for the state. Fracking should not be allowed in Oklahoma because of its environmental implications, its effect on Oklahoma’s future, and its impact on the people of Oklahoma.
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