Why Hydraulic Fracking Should Be Conducted At Drilling

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

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.

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.

It’s been over 65 years since fracking first began as a method of extraction by oil and gas companies, but the government has done little to regulate the catastrophic practice. How anyone could consider injecting tens of thousands of gallons of water and chemicals deep into the ground being a good idea is beyond me. Those chemicals include chlorine, acetone, benzene, formaldehyde, ammonia, and almost 600 other chemicals that fracking operations won’t even reveal to the public. These chemicals, despite denial by all major natural gas and oil companies that practice fracking, almost always end up in groundwater supplies. I’m sure you’ve seen at least one video online of someone who lives near a fracking site lighting the water coming out of their faucet on fire. Thanks to a ruling in 2005 under the Bush administration, fracking operations are exempt from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean

The energy sector has seen a dramatic change over the past decade. Exploring other sources of energy has become common in the United States. An increase in unconventional sources of energy, including hydraulic fracturing, has surged a debate that has impacted state as well as local governments. With an increase in production, arguments have emerged that both oppose and approve of new practices. However, local government has lost its autonomy when dealing with such topics, especially in Colorado. Looking at the many concerns from the citizens of communities affected by fracking, it is clear that the state should allow cities the right to ban practices that they are concerned for and need time to evaluate.

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.

Public health issues do not have straightforward solutions, including fracking effects on children’s health. There are various challenges, including economic considerations (e.g., economic growth vs. the well-being of future generations) and what to do with residents near fracking sites. With regard to economic considerations, the focus in the United States has been on the access to natural resources, for example coal and natural gas (Mathews & Tan, 2014). Obtaining natural resources, like natural gas, is easier today because of the development of fracking technologies (Jain, 2015). Consequently, the US can become more energy independent, can decrease the money spent on foreign natural resources, and can provide low-cost natural resources

California faces an imminent danger from Big Oil. Big Oil wants to use millions of gallons of water and frack oil from Sacramento, my hometown, to Los Angeles. Fracking, also known as Hydraulic Fracturing, is a method of obtaining natural gas by drilling a hole into the ground and than injecting “water, sand, and a proprietary mix of chemicals into the shale fracturing the rock and releasing the natural gas, which is captured when it flows up and out of the hole (Mitka).” In the process millions of gallons of water are polluted and large amounts of air pollutants are released into the atmosphere. The ramifications on human health as a result of fracking is what causes most to worry. In the next four decades, fracking possesses dangers that directly affect human and animal health, the land, and our ecosystems.

It has been proven that important water wells across the nation have been polluted with chemicals deriving from fracking drills. “Each well uses between two and five million gallons of locally-sourced fresh water which will be permanently contaminated by ground contaminants and toxic chemicals contained in the fracking fluid.”(cleanwateraction.org). It is impossible for us to live without fresh water. The water used in fracking destroys the environment. “The millions of gallons of water used in fracking operations not only strain water resources, but end up as vast amounts of contaminated wastewater. Fracking has been reported as a suspect in polluted drinking water around the country. And methane -- a potent climate change pollutant -- leaks rampantly throughout the extraction, processing, and distribution of oil and gas.”(nrdc.org). Besides hampering water consumption to communities, the pollution destroys all related environments, including the atmosphere, which is affected by the evaporated fumes. However, according to geologist Gary Lash of the State University of New York at Fredonia, it is not possible for the fracking fluid to seep through the rocks and into the water. That is not the case since there are multiple documented cases of

A woman stood at the doorway and watched until the shiny car pulled away out of sight. She turned around and returned to her seat at the table. She stared at the empty space where the contract had been and replayed the deal the man had presented to her. The oil company was ready to give $2,500 an acre plus 15 percent royalty in exchange for the rights to frack on her land. She had heard stories of people becoming rich from fracking and about how the oil industry saved towns like her’s. The deal sounded too good to be true; simply allow the workers to drill a few holes and be on their way, and she would be richer. It was described as a chain of events with minimal consequences. The woman, however, had done her research. She knew the horrors this could bring to her community. She didn’t regret turning the deal down and sending the man away. She had rehearsed what she would say the day the man in the shiny car inevitably knocked on her door. While the oil company wanted to present fracking as a get-rich-quick scheme with few ramifications, her decision ultimately resulted from her loyalty to the greater good of her community outweighing her own personal motives.

Fracking is the process where pressurized water is injected into shale beds, or layers of sedimentary rock, which opens the rock to release oil and natural gas. Fracking is dangerous for many reasons, but one of the strongest affects it has is on our drinking water. Anywhere from 2 to 8 million gallons of water are used to frack only one well. Shockingly, just 10 percent of the water used returns to the surface. However, water isn’t the only thing being put in the ground- a “toxic stew” of chemicals and sand are also added. Over 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used every time we frack. The chemicals in the fracking mixture can make its way to our groundwater, harming the

Oil fracking may seem to be a harmless uprising invention to the standard peer. However, when looking into the concerns and damaging effects from oil fracking, this invention may be more of an issue rather than a solution to retrieving oil. Scientists and researchers began to discover that oil fracking could lead to the release of dangerous chemicals that can be threatening to human life and the environment. CEO’s are also not providing sufficient information and warnings surrounding the oil fracking industry. Articles by Thompson, Perez-Pena, Christopherson, and Gerken, all express the concerns and supporting evidence of the damaging effects caused by oil fracking. Ultimately, fracking is a dangerous method to getting oil because the chemicals

As fracking spreads throughout the United States, there are more and more reported cases of contaminated drinking water and illness among citizens living near fracking sites. Even with these cases, it is still difficult for the public to grasp just how dangerous fracking is to the public and the environment. Fracking is already legal in 17 states, and nearly 85,000 wells have been drilled or permitted in the past 10 years (Finkel 2013.) Not only is the industry extremely stable, but the gas industry is actually trying to expand fracking into new states—including North Carolina.