Natural Gas Fracking

Imbued with continuous fabrications, Gasland by Josh Fox is a less reliable argument on hydraulic fracking compared to FrackNation by Phelim McAleer. Hydraulic fracturing, is a technique used by the oil and gas industry to extract natural gas from rock thousands of feet underground. The process includes pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals underground. Gasland is filled with multiple concerns and warnings of the breakdown of the chemicals causing harm to our environment. Josh Fox relies heavily on repetition of facts in his film by giving statements and no information to back them up. In Gasland pathos is used frequently to catch the audiences soft spot, making them feel guilty about what fracking is doing to the environment.

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

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

“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.

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.

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

While this process is happening the chemicals and toxins tend to reach out towards the nearby groundwater and eventually contaminate oceans and drinking water wells. By this time both animals and humans are being affected. It can get into our systems and make us sick. These toxins reach out to both land animals and sea animals. If these animals get enough toxins in their systems, they will eventually get sick and die off. Fracking affects both the land around, humans, animals and plants. While on the subject of potentially hurting human life, there have been known videos of people holding a lighter next to their tap water and it setting on fire due to the methane gas

The most obvious economic benefit of fracking is that it allows the U.S. to collect natural gas and oil from our own land, meaning that we do not have to import as much from other countries (Jackson, 2014). Reducing the amount of natural gas and oil

Respiratory problems have been created by fracking pollution. “Impacts of can include asthma attacks, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing and lung disease. Levels of pollutants high enough to cause respiratory problems, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children, have been found both close to fracking sites and in regions with intense oil and gas activity.” We must guard the air we breathe because we are going to the be the ones who will get harmed by it. Exposure to pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide and VOCs can cause neurological problems with ranges from a headache and dizziness to loss of consciousness and seizures. “Multiple studies have measured benzene levels close to fracking sites that are higher than the thresholds set to protect people from these impacts.” These are the problems that a lot of people living near the fracking wells have to face. A number of PAHs and VOCs have been found to interfere with fetal and child development resulting in dangerous harm to the developing brain, nervous system, and heart. “Because even short-term exposures to these pollutants at critical moments of development can result in long-lasting harm, health experts have identified this as a threat to communities living in close proximity to fracking sites.” These impacts can change a child’s entire life with the child having many kinds

The implementation of fracking has had a dramatic economic impact on the United States. The use of fracking in the last decade has increased the production of natural gas from shale formations by 10 times. (Issues) This has resulted in the United States moving more toward natural gas and away from coal to fulfill its energy power needs. In fact, one of the largest production growth areas of

When making the huge wells used to obtain natural gas, results show that five percent of the wells start leaking gas immediately. Studies show fracking “releases a cocktail of chemicals from a menu of more than 600 toxic substances, climate-changing methane, radium, and, of course, uranium” (Lennon 535). These multiple gases can cause serious health issues including asthma and even cancer. It is a widely-known fact that smoking can and does cause lung cancer. So, when one says it is okay to frack in various places, that is equivalent to one saying, “Smoking lighter cigarettes in the right place at the right time makes it safe to smoke” (Lennon 535). If one is inhaling various gases that are more dangerous than smoking, that shows how dangerous fracking is, and how harmful it is not only to the earth, but to many people’s health. If workers continue using hydraulic fracturing to retrieve gas like they are now, the effects will only worsen. There are ways to improve the dangerous effects of fracking today, and in the future. Various people have been able to figure out the mystery of how the dangerous fracking gases are able to escape to the air. The EPA has found dispersed occurrences where the cement, that is supposed to secure the gases from escaping, has many cracks in it (USA Today Editorial Board 546). With care of fracking comes great results such as: water not being contaminated,

Fracking has actually changed out future as we know it, and has made it possible for many things. Fracking will make the world run on natural fossil fuels for much longer, which is also better for the environment and us. In 2015, the U.S. reached its all time high in oil production in 14 years and is only expected to continually rise. Oil production in the U.S. is one of the main sources of jobs for people living in the U.S. (Nunez, 2013). Fracking is a good way to employ U.S. citizens and is also a good way to get natural ways of oil production. As we all

A woman from Pennsylvania turned on her faucet and lit the water on fire with a match. This is a direct result of methane traveling in the pipes due to fracking. People are protesting against fracking because of the damage it causes to the environment and public health. Fracking is favored by energy companies because production is relatively cheap and easy. However, these are not the only considerations. The government should ban fracking because of the negative impact it has on the environment, water contamination, air pollution, and human health.

‘So companies drill down, often a mile or more. They drill sideways through a shale layer that might be only a hundred or a couple hundred feet thick. And once they’ve drilled out sideways a mile or two, then they’ll pump water, sand, and chemicals underground at very high pressure to crack the rock and free the gas’ . Fracking fluid is mostly water, and each fracking job takes 2 to 4 million gallons of water per well. Once pumped underground, several million gallons flow back to the surface as wastewater. Massive water withdrawals from rivers and streams occur to achieve this process, thus resulting in a major ecological impact; ‘stream/river stress’. Another ecological hazard is habitat fragmentation stemming from the siting of oil well pads, pipelines and supporting infrastructure. Aside these toxic emissions to air, water and soil also affect the ecological domain. Potent greenhouse gas such as methane and particulate matter from compressors and flaring5 pose potential damage to the quality of air inhaled by the residents and community in

The case of The Cerny family was given as an example in a 47 page web journal written by Sharon Wilson of Earthworks titled Reckless Endangerment While Fracking the Eagle Ford. Where it was explained that this was a family that lived in Karnes city, Texas where “18 oil wells have been drilled and fractured within a mile of the Cernys” and that this family was a witness and a victim of all of the previously mentioned air pollutants even “propane-rich gas” which sprung up their families “deteriorating health.” The concerns and documented cases such as the Cerny family all over America of fracking caused air contamination due to the excessive release and burning of methane gas and active organic compounds into the atmosphere and air caught yet again the attention of the government. In 2012, the EPA placed a new rule for the sake of air quality on natural gas wells requiring the gas to be captured after drilling instead of venting or burning the excess and said to “reduce volatile organic compound emissions by 95%.” The passing of this ruling spread a rejoiceful moment of relief for those that were affected by the life impeding air pollution of hydraulic