Whole Lotta Shakin Going On Summary

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.

With earthquakes on the rise, we must figure out the cause of them and determine a solution to help limit or even prevent them from occurring. Since early 2009, earthquakes have been sweeping across the state of Oklahoma, causing many people to worry about their own well-being. Many scientists speculate the source of the earthquakes might be a result of Hydraulic Fracturing deep down in Earths’ crust. Hydraulic fracturing is a process in which oil and natural gas companies pump up to millions of gallons of wastewater, sand, and chemicals down drilled holes in order to release pockets of shale within the earth. This use of technology is in question of the potential cause or inducement of earthquakes in

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

2). Standard homeowner policies in Oklahoma don’t usually cover the damages done by earthquakes; however, since 2011 an agent for Farmer’s Insurance stated that their earthquake insurance has risen by 39% now insuring 40% of all their homes (Earthquake, par. 3) That year the largest Oklahoma earthquake ever recorded with a magnitude of 5.6 crumpled 14 homes and wounded two victims. Even though the oil industry continues to claim these earthquakes are not an effect of fracking, seismologist Ameberlee Darold with the Oklahoma Geological Survey is quoted, “it's no longer a matter of debate that hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, or ‘fracking,’ causes earthquakes. It's known that fracking can cause earthquakes and has caused earthquakes” (Earthquakes, par. 5). Homeowners in Oklahoma now have more costs to wrestle with due to the earthquakes caused by the

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

To environmental advocates and opponents of fracking, the process is more than dollars and cents. On a rudimentary level, the oil and natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing are fossil fuels, and thus harmful to the environment in comparison to renewable, clean sources of energy such as solar and wind power. These renewable energy fields are likewise capable of bolstering American energy production and independence and creating high paying careers. Moreover, research suggests that fracking practices could cause serious methane leaks, canceling out the supposed reduction in greenhouse gas

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

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.

Energy sources in today’s world are becoming scarcer by the day, as energy is one of our most needed and essential commodities. Who supplies the energy and how much energy they are supplying typically determines the amount of influence one country might have over another regarding our global economy. This is where hydraulic fracturing becomes a controversial and important topic to those of us in the United States. Lately, environmental campaigners have voiced concerns over the large amounts of water that is needed to carry out the fracking process and the possibility of tremors it could cause. For example, in 2011, the Black pool area in England experienced two relatively small quakes. One reading 1.5 and the other reading 2.2 on the magnitude scale. Collin Richardson, vice president of operations for Mineral Resources Inc., feels that the issue is perplexed when he states, "People go to a light switch and expect energy to be there, but they don't think about where it comes from. I don't think most people understand that without hydraulic fracturing, we wouldn't have natural gas to provide electricity to our homes or gas in our cars” (Rydbom). It seems as though there is a misconception about fracking that arises from the environmentalist groups as to what fracking really is. These misconceptions cause an emotional upset with citizens due to the twisting of facts and fake news.

Fracking explained: opportunity or danger. YouTube. N.p., 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. .

The crisis for obtaining fossil fuels such as oil and natural gases is at an all-time high. With the limited amounts and struggles of obtaining these needed natural resources for everyday use we find ourselves trying new technological advancements to extract these fossil fuels out of the ground. One way of doing so is through the use of fracking. Fracking is the extraction of natural gasses from shell rock deep beneath the earth’s surface. With the new scientific technological advancements of fracking we can obtain natural gasses in ways that were once un-thought of before. In many ways fracking is beneficial, fracking can provide vast amounts of natural gasses which can be used not only in our everyday lives, but can also be beneficial from an economic stand point as well. However, along with the benefits of fracking there also comes some drawbacks. The use of fracking can contaminate our water sources, and can also cause very large amounts of pollution, causing diseases and death. To get a clearer understanding of what fracking can do we must first learn how fracking works, its benefits for our economy, but also its drawbacks on the environment, and draw a conclusion on whether or not fracking is overall more beneficial or harmful.

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.

Foster, Joanna M. "More Than Flaming Water: New Report Tracks Health Impacts of Fracking on Pennsylvania Residents' Health."Think Progress RSS. N.p., n.d.

Fracking poses a lot of dangers to human and animal health. When I discovered that Big Oil is attempting to establish drilling locations near my hometown of Sacramento I was a bit disturbed. The negative effects of fracking on humans were even observed in a study done in Pennsylvania. The study showed that of the 41 products used in fracturing operations, “73% had between 6 and 14 different adverse health effects” (Mitka 2012). The adverse effects on humans included skin, eye and sensory organ damage, Respiratory distress, gastrointestinal tract and liver disease, brain and nervous system harms, cancers, and problems with reproduction. Many of these adverse effects are