To Drill or Not to Drill Essay

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 continuing controversial topic about how fracking can affect our drinking water. Recently, the U.S. EPA has confirmed that hydraulic fracturing does contaminate our drinking water system. According to EPA scientist, Dominic Digiulio, argues that hydraulic fracturing does contaminate drinking water. Eight years ago, in Pavillion, Wyoming, people live in a natural gas basin, complained about the “bad taste and smell in the drinking water” (Vaidyanathan). In Digiulio’s peer studies, he claims that the drinking water are contaminated with chemicals linking to fracking; however, labs cannot see fracking chemicals. The EPA began water testing in 2009, while Digiulio got involved in January

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

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.

Yet, according to Environmental Heath Perspectives author David Holzman (2011), “In a study of 68 private drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania and New York, methane contamination rose sharply with proximity to natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) sites” (p. 1). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) suspects that the cause of this contamination is the result of leaks caused by poor gas well construction at the fracking sites. Not only is the water surrounding the hydraulic fracturing sites getting contaminated but it is also getting depleted at a fast rate. According to Scientific American journalist Bobby Magill (2015), “Oil and natural gas fracking, on average, uses more than 28 times the water it did 15 years ago, … putting farming and drinking sources at risk in arid states, especially during drought” (p. 1). One of these states is California which is undergoing one the worst droughts in its history. Despite this fact, California is still extracting natural gas using hydraulic fracturing. There are also other types of environmental problems that threaten America’s landscapes which are caused by hydraulic

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

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.

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, or the removal of natural gas from shale, has rapidly grown in popularity and is predicted to overcome coal as the nation’s top power source. Even though burning natural gas releases less carbon dioxide than coal or diesel, fracking releases methane into the atmosphere and the increase in storage accidents over the past few years support Emily Schwartz Greco’s claim on the dangers of fracking and the need for a change in public opinion over fracking.

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.

“A Duke study explains 60 sites in New York and Pennsylvania found explosive levels of natural gas in homes water supply a mile and a half from the drilling”(Stone). In addition to “In December 2011, The U.S. E.P.A. relegated a 121-page report linking the contamination of drinking water wells near the town of Pavillion Wyoming to nearby gas drilling” (Stone). This is becoming a very big problem. Fracking has been widely accepted across the country extremely fast with any regulations. It is time to set down some standards. Flowback is water they suck back out after the fracturing that is where all the chemicals are that they put down there to fracture the shale. When the liquid is sucked back up what do they do with it? They go in holding pits. Holding pits vary from state to state on its own regulations on

McGraw describes several of the numerous incidents of air and water pollution that occurred directly from the fracking. Methane, a colorless and odorless greenhouse gas that is known to trap radiation, leaked several times in Susquehanna. Not only were water supplies contaminated by chemicals, but fracking can often lead to droughts as the oil companies draw water for the hydraulic fracturing. Some people have found so much gas in their water that it could be set on fire. Methane can have harmful long-term effects from

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,

In the State of Pennsylvania, a huge shale natural gas deposit has been found that could hold an even larger chance for growth in energy production in the United States. This natural gas deposit called the Marcellus shale deposit actually “stretches 1,000 miles from New York to Virginia and is 300 miles across at the widest point” (Grottenthaler 2011). Most of this formation of shale natural gas lies in the Pennsylvania portion of the shale natural gas deposit containing roughly “$500 billion in recoverable gas” (Finkel 2011). Not only is this great for the economy in Pennsylvania, it is also a great sign for the economy in the rest of the United States as well. According to many experts on the

In December 2011, the federal Environmental Protection Agency concluded that fracking operations could be responsible for groundwater pollution.“Today’s methods make gas drilling a filthy business. You know it’s bad when nearby residents can light the water coming out of their tap on fire,” says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. What’s causing the fire is the methane from the drilling operations. A ProPublica investigation in 2009 revealed methane contamination was widespread in drinking water in areas around fracking operations in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. The presence of methane in drinking water in Dimock, Pa., had become the focal point for Josh Fox’s investigative documentary, Gasland, which received an Academy Award nomination in 2011 for Outstanding Documentary; Fox also received an Emmy for non-fiction directing. Fox’s interest in fracking intensified when a natural gas company offered $100,000 for mineral rights on property his family owned in Milanville, in the extreme northeast part of Pennsylvania, about 60 miles east of Dimock.