The Effects Of Fracking On The Environment

While solving the issue of having to rely on others for oil and gas, fracking is also creating the problem of harming the environment and creating issues for residents living near the sites and the leasers themselves.

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 most dangerous consequence of fracking is that hundreds of chemicals are blasted into the Earth’s crust, which creates cracks in the bedrock. Many times, these cracks lead to an aquifer, in which case, all of the water in the aquifer becomes contaminated with these chemicals (Jackson, 2014). Additionally, when the natural gas is being pumped out of the wells, methane is released into the atmosphere. A study conducted by NOAA found that approximately 4% of the methane is being released into the atmosphere. This same study found that methane pollution increases climate changes because it traps heat in the atmosphere 25 times more than carbon dioxide (Hoffman, 2016). Furthermore, fracking waste wells are the primary cause of the increase of earthquakes in the Central U.S. This is because these wells operate for a longer period of time, which means that they inject more “solid ‘cake’” into the Earth than the actual fracking process (USGS, n.d. and StateImpact, 2017). Finally, recent studies have found that people who live near a fracking site are at higher risk to develop respiratory problems, which is due to the increased levels of pollutants. These pollutants are not only affecting the people who live in close proximity to these sites, but to the workers, as well. The most common type of respiratory problem reported was lung

Although the process of Fracking seems reasonable because it is something we use in our daily lives for cooking food, heating homes, and amongst other things, the question remains whether it is an actual positive or negative to not only us (not even a question) but to the environment? When looking at the pro side one main reason would be the additional access to gas and oil fracking would give us since “many scientists believe we only had a few years left to use fossil fuels before they ran out” (2015). The second positive effect for us would be the lowering of taxes. With more accessibility to gas and oil it wouldn't be such a demand allowing gas for cooking to lower as well as petroleum for cars. Lastly, it can create a

While fracking has provided a cleaner fuel, there are many negative effects to the environment, the beef industry, human health and little positive effects. Some of these effects include; ground water being polluted with harmful chemicals, this polluted water can cause extreme sickness in humans. Fracking disrupts the habitats of animals and they have to leave the area to find clean water and a better food supply. Also it has been taking an effect on the beef industry in how farmers raise and sell their cattle. Fracking can have negative long term effects on the people living in the local area and make that area inhabitable.

Hydraulic Fracturing, also known as fracking, is directly linked to having effects on the environment and the overall public health. The debate on whether or not fracking is too harsh on the environment has been going on ever since the United States has increased its use of this process to obtain more natural resources. Hydraulic fracturing is also directly correlated to having effects on drinking water. The process of fracking includes the injection of water containing other chemicals into the ground to extract natural resources that would otherwise be more difficult to obtain (Hydraulic Fracturing Overview, 2012). Although the process of fracking has resulted in an increase of natural resources, such as natural gas and oil, public health and environmental concerns have arisen. This topic has been the discussion of many people and whether or not there should be some form of government regulation in place, as it is nonexistent to this day. With that said, hydraulic fracturing in the United States has more negative effects on drinking water and the environment over time and should not be used as a means to obtain natural resources.

Throughout the whole drilling process, many chemicals, and wastes release to the air. Among these chemicals, the process emits a huge amount of methane which is a very big contributor to global warming. The possibility of water contamination in fracking areas is also very immense because of the high tendency of wastes to seep back in to water supply. Rachel Richardson, a co-author of the paper from Environment America, told ThinkProgress, “For the past decade, fracking has been a nightmare for our drinking water, our open spaces, and our climate”. Researches have also revealed, as a result of the application of huge pressure in to the rocks, fracking triggers earthquake. As per MSNBC report “new study links Oklahoma earthquakes to fracking”

Particularly, there is a concern about produced water (i.e., water that reaches the surface after fracking) because it contains various dangerous chemicals (e.g., radium) and it can mix with the ground water and surface water (US EPA, 2016). Furthermore, the air of fracking areas contains compounds that are carcinogens, and that cause respiratory and neurological problems (Carpenter, 2015). Fracking also affects certain people more; for example in Southern Texas, areas with high numbers of colored people and high levels of poverty were more likely to have disposal wells from fracking (Johnston, Werder, & Sebastian, 2016). Additionally, the laws are not on the people’s side; many laws have been passed in order to protect the oil and gas industry (Twomey et al., 2016). Ideally, the best solution would be to stop fracking all together in order to prevent any more detrimental events from happening. However, a more approachable solution would involve moving towards renewable energy. Renewal energy is a better alternative, because it will not damage the environment to such a great extent as fossil fuels (Cohen, 2015). Also, renewable energy is long-term energy solution in comparison to natural gas (Mathews & Tan, 2014). Eventually, natural gas will be depleted if it is utilized as a main energy source (Cohen,

Their local ecosystem is being destroyed in many ways. One controversial issue that fracking is responsible for is its immense use of water. For example, for every one barrel of oil that is recovered from fracking it leaves behind ten barrels of waste water (Stockton 3). After doing research, environmentalists have been concerned about potentially carcinogenic chemical’s ability to pollute groundwater (“What is Fracking…” 6). For example, rivers nearby become contaminated so animals can no longer drink out of it and you can’t swim in them. Another impact that fracking has on the local ecosystem is how it has been proven to cause earthquakes. In states specifically like Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas we see this happening. Faults in these areas have started to move for the first time in millions of years (Loki 6). Lawsuits against energy companies have even taken place. For example, Oklahoma experienced 5,838 earthquakes in 2015 compared to 167 earthquakes in 2009 as a consequence of fracking (“Lawsuit Seeks Damages…” 2). Undoubtedly, the environment is slowly being destroyed by fracking at our own

Fracking is a relatively new way of retrieving oil and natural gases from shale rock and other natural resources that reside in the earth’s core, using air and water together. Thus far it has been proven to be a quicker alternative to oil well drilling compared to conventional drilling methods. Oil and gas companies are still learning about the side effects of this elaborate process day by day. Despite a few side effects that have been discovered within the process, fracking has been very efficient and beneficial. As stated in, “Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Key Issues”, “Fracking saves lives, and it saves them right now and not at some indiscernible date well into the future”. (http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/)

Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a mine stimulation technique that is taking the country by storm. It is a multi-billion dollar industry and in some parts of the country there are so many wells clustered together that they can be seen from space. The commodity being mined is natural gas. Natural gas has earned itself many new names depending on who is asked. According to big gas companies like Haiburton, it’s America’s solution to the energy crisis and a fuel for the 21st century. They claim this current period of economic and energy prosperity is due to increased fracking. However, this prosperity does not come without a cost. Many landowners, environmentalists, and scientists claim the process is poisoning the air, ground, water,

“The waste fluids is left in open air pits to evaporate, releasing harmful VOC’s(violent organic compounds)into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain, and ground level ozone”(What Goes In and Out Of Hydraulic Fracking). This air pollution can cause serious health condition such as blood disorder, respiratory problems, birth defects and cancer and several others (Is Fracking Polluting the Air).

There has not been an adequate amount of research into the long-term consequences that fracking will have. As of now the quality of the air in and around fracking sites is not monitored and the impact of the health of nearby residents and workers is unknown. There needs to be legislation put in place to force the fracking companies to provide a list of chemicals being used. Due to the lack of regulation the communities around fracking sites have no way of knowing the exact composition of the chemicals that are in use. If an accident were to happen at one of the fracking sites, emergency responders would be unprepared, there are different ways to deal with different

Although oil companies uphold the idea that fracking is a cheaper and efficient, fracking damages the local water, air and soil in the surrounding cities. According to the Science of Total Environment, scientists speculate that wells require up to 5 million gallons of fluid per extraction event, which would require tons of chemicals including benzene, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides to unconventionally bring out the shale gas (Werner et al. 2014). The lengthy list of air pollutants, most of which are combustible, suggests that both human health and the environment are at risk and the surrounding water aquifers located near the horizontal wells could also be damaged. The amount of water needed for extraction also demonstrates the strain the process of fracking has on the environment and local water supply. Similarly, the potency of methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, which is further aggravated by the process of flaring (Weinhold 2012). Thus, flaring and fracking serves not only as a nuisance to the community through the health hazards and water pollution, but can worsen the status of global climate

Fracking is becoming increasingly prevalent in today's society as a means to extract an increasingly rare resource from our environment. Despite the many arguments made in its favor by oil companies and supporters of such company’s hydraulic fracturing or fracking is harmful to people, the environment, and should be prohibited. In this paper the reasons given for fracking being beneficial are untrue. Explanations why the harm done by fracking outweighs the good will be given. There will be evidence shown for the damage hydraulic fracturing does to people and the environment.