Oil Fracking Effects

Bob Weinhold, a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, has been investigating environmental health issues since 1996. He continues to expose the public to the consequences of environmental abuse. His article “The Future of Fracking,” analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their efforts made to regulate and improve the current state of toxic air emissions produced by hydraulic fracturing sites in the United States. Weinhold successfully presents technological and economic benefits of oil and natural gas drilling but counters these successes by considering the damage that current fracking sites and future fracking sites have on human and environmental health. The information he

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process used in nine out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States, where millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are pumped underground to break apart the rock and release the gas. Scientists are worried that the chemicals used in fracturing may pose a threat either underground or when waste fluids are handled and sometimes spilled on the surface. The natural gas industry defends hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, as safe and efficient. Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-industry non-profit organization, claims fracking has been “a widely deployed as safe extraction technique,” dating back to 1949. What he doesn’t say is that until recently energy

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

For the past two years, The Dakota Access Pipeline has ignited fierce debate between environmental activists and energy advocates, spurring polarizing and confusing headlines. Cutting through four states from North Dakota to Illinois, the $3.7 billion project is threatening to affect the lives of many, and promising to bring unparalleled energy to the northcentral United States. But all these threats and promises, protests, and incidental reports on social media cloud the science behind each argument and separate the public from a true understanding of the source of contention: fracking.

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

If John D. Rockefeller, one of the first oil tycoons, were to look at the oil industry today, would he believe his eyes? With millions of oil barrels being imported and exported each year, the oil industry has changed dramatically since the 19th century. At the forefront of the oil industry is the emergence of an oil drilling technique known as fracking. Fracking is an unconventional drilling process that is accomplished by using high-pressured water to release oil and natural gas from rock formations, known as shales. The use of fracking in the United States has made it one of the top oil producing countries in the world. However, this newfound oil and gas drilling method has not come without its costs. Despite the economic boom near drilling locations, politically, fracking has caused some international relationships to be strained. Also, fracking is seen as highly controversial by conservationists because of the environmental threats that it poses. The drilling method of fracking has deeply impacted the United States from an economic, a political, and an environmental standpoint.

“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.

This debate covered the controversial issue of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The two sides that can be taken within this debate are, Bruce McKenzie Everett’s side or John Rumpler’s side. Everett believes that hydraulic fracturing is completely worth it, due to the fact that the economic benefits outweigh the negative impacts on our environment. While Rumpler argues that there are very crucial tolls fracking is taking on our environment, and also our health. Throughout the article there are 6 question proposed to each person. The first, and maybe most important, question asked is ‘is fracking safe?’ Everett responds first by saying that nothing in the world is entirely safe, and then continues to nullify the multitude of threats fracking

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.

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.