On every fracking site, 8 million gallons of water and 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used each day. In addition, these chemicals are injected 10,000 feet into the ground. This interesting statistic calls attention to the dangers of contamination and pollution that fracking brings to local communities and residents. A PhD recipient from Duke University, Dr. Richard Anderson, claims that the federal government needs to have certain limitations on national fracking protocol. Otherwise, he argues greater environmental issues with the oil and gas industries may arise.
Many recent articles and research have agreed with Dr. Anderson in the conclusion that water contamination and greater health risks may occur if the government does not provide a solution. The Texas legislature should ban or minimize fracking in specific areas of Texas, which includes Forth Worth where there are 12,000 fracking wells. The reasons are because fracking causes contamination in groundwater and the atmosphere, uses chemicals that are unsafe and toxic, causes health risks to many residents, and causes earthquakes.
Fracking causes contamination in groundwater and can cause an increase in pollution in the atmosphere. According to Environment America, fracking has produced approximately 280 billion gallons of waste water in the year 2012(Lustgarten). Additionally, many people believe that waste pits and toxic chemicals are public hazards due to the fact that these have contaminated more than 400 fracking zones in New Mexico alone(Pros and Cons). Moreover, many scientists have linked the injection of chemicals underground and the production of wastewater to the initiation of earthquakes.
Fracking tends to take millions of gallons of water out of the national supply of water annually because fracking converts clean water into toxic wastewater. This contaminated water must be permanently disposed of. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these toxins can enter the water supply because of leaks and spills, in addition to the well breakouts. In Colorado, 57 thousand aces of land have been damaged due to the effects of fracking(Potential Health and Environment).
Researchers from Duke University found that “proximity of drinking water wells to fracking wells increases the risk of contamination of residential wells with methane in Pennsylvania. ” The chemicals used in the process of fracking are toxic and hazardous to the health of many residents who live near these fracking sites. In May 2010, wastewater leaked into Pennsylvanian farmland, where the state Department of Agriculture was forced to quarantine 28 cattle exposed to the fluid to prevent any contaminated meat from reaching the market.
Fracking harms public safety by increasing traffic in rural areas where roads are not designed for such high volumes, by creating an explosion risk from methane, and by increasing earthquake activity(Hydraulic Fracturing). According to Joe Hoffman from Geology and Human Health: “Despite the complexities of the on-site mixtures of chemicals and their specific contributions to health and environmental problems involved in fracking–conventional drilling practices are more old school and do have known health consequences.
Researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, analyzed existing research of exposure to conventional petroleum hydrocarbons in occupational settings, and residences near refineries, in conjunction with known pollutants associated with fracking (nonconventional), in order to assess health risks to those residents living near fracking operations. Their basic conclusions were: the closer you live to drilling operations, the greater your health risk.
Sounds obvious, but if you were to sue an oil company for the suspected killing a loved one via cancer, you would need a little more legal ammunition than “it just makes common sense” against an army of corporate lawyers (Potential Health and Environment). ” Many geologists believe that the millions of gallons of chemicals that are forced underground at high pressures have the ability to activate earthquakes. A number of these earthquakes are caused by underground injection wells which are used to dispose of contaminated water which is created by the fracking process.
Since these wells do not provide gas or oil, there is no benefits associated by these fracking zones. This is because the disposal wells are considered as the final resting place for the usage of the drilling fluid and are encased in a various layers of thick concrete. According to the Railroad Commission there are more than 51,000 disposal wells in Texas that each use 4. 5 million gallons of “chemical-laced water. ” Additionally, Swarthmore College collected data in which each fracking well contains approximately 344 chemicals plus the chemicals that are unknown to scientists(The Serious Risks).
Of these chemicals, 75 percent are known to cause skin irritation and approximately 30% of these chemicals trigger a higher risk to complications, including cancer and mutated defects(The Serious Risks). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is researching the effects of the chemicals of the wells that are created due to the fracking techniques. According to Josh Fox, creator of the documentary film “Gasland”, the natural gas such as methane, is a major heat-trapping resource that has the potential to be “105 times more likely to be more powerful than carbon dioxide upon release(Gasland). Moreover, these natural gas wells are drilled deep below the Earth’s surface at depths of 8,000 feet. Many of the fracking wells leak due to the splitting of shale at high pressures. Richard Anderson from Yale Global Online, writes about the need for alternate energy due to the process of fracking that harms the environment(Yale Global). He states that there a great possibility that there will be a shale revolution due to the fact that many countries around the world want an alternate energy source to rely on, since coal and oil prices are rising.
Furthermore, Sandy Dechert from Physicians for Social Responsibility discusses the effects of fracking on public health and mentions that “many of the chemicals that are used are known carcinogens(Physicians for Social). ” Therefore, the people who consume high amounts of water resources and live in areas of high traffic of fracking procedures will have a higher risk of receiving health issues in the long run due to these contaminants. Fracking expert, Avner Vengosh, states that there is a direct relationship between the amount of fracking done and the affect of the contamination of ground water.
Dr. Vengosh focuses on the link from environmental geochemistry and isotope hydrology in order to trace the sources and mechanisms of water contamination and relationships with human health within these fracking areas(First Person). In addition, he supports the claim made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) where he believes that contamination is probable in the groundwater contamination but there are certain levels of chemicals that are not highly toxic to human health and, additionally, is not a public health hazard.
Furthermore, he states that “only if new technologies emerge that don’t depend on pumping water into the ground to ease the extraction” then there will be less problems associated with fracking(First Person). In essence, the chemicals that are used are consider highly toxic and function as environmental hazards and health risks to those who live in fracking zones. This is because the fact that fracking uses toxic chemicals, many of which are unknown. In addition, one common chemical that is used is Hydrofluoric acid, which is can corrode dense materials such as glass, steel, or rock(Pros and Cons).
This chemical is usually created and produced on site as it is a mixture of hydrochloric acid and ammonium sulfide and then is immediately injected into the fracking well because it is dangerous to handle and is toxic to the health and well-being of organisms. Furthermore, Harvard University discusses the effects of the mixture of chemicals that are used in order to create fissures in the wells to make it easier for the extraction of oil and natural gas. The benefits of fracking include the increase reliance on natural gas resources, rather than coal. The major supply of new natural gas replaced the coal.
Additionally, the coal is considered harmful, in the process of burning, to the environment because it causes early death of thousands of people. For this reason, many people believe that the increasing rate in fracking benefits the United States’ economy. In another way, fracking save lives and reduces the early death rate. The amount of coal and natural gas resources from fracking changed dramatically according to the data from Yale Climate Connections. Therefore, in present day, the amount of natural gas has approximately exceeded the amount of coal produced.
Accordingly to Yale, “Coal made up about 50 percent of U. S. electricity generation in 2008, 37 percent by 2012; meanwhile, natural gas went from about 20 percent to about 30 percent during that same period,” which changed the ratio between the two resources(Yale). Some people believe that this is the case. However, there are studies that show that the natural gas facilities that replace coal-fired power plant doesn’t guarantee the regional air quality. Given this viewpoint, there has not been valid research about air quality around fracking areas. Therefore, the impact on the nearby population is unnamed.
According to Yale, the issue relating to ozone is concerned whether it is harmful or not: “some of the available research evidence from places such as Utah and Colorado suggests there may be under-appreciated problems with air quality, particularly relating to ozone (Yale). ” Some researchers also believe that the operation of fracking, which extracts oil and gas from deep down in the underground can create cracks, and has the capacity to reach the level above which is the water supplies. In order to make sure the safety of contamination, the companies have to pay extra attention to make sure the pipes do not have cracks.
Additionally, with different ground levels, between the tubing and pipes for each supply, many believe that contamination is unlikely to happen. Throughout the history of fracking, there has been research showing that the amount of incidents have reduced because “between 2008 and 2011, only a handful of major incidents happened across more than 3,500 wells in the Marcellus (Yale). ” Many people believe that the operations and the process of fracking could be improved as time pass by with the advance and new technologies.
Although this may be true, there have been many major incidents that could risk and cause mortality to human lives. Incidents could happen even with the advanced technologies which may cause a major conflict contaminating the water and also can be harmful to people. As mentioned before, even with high maintenance technologies, accidents could still happen because “another major study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirmed that high-volume hydraulic fracturing techniques can contaminate drinking water” and could come with unmeasurable consequences (Yale).
Many reports were about the contaminated water by the nearby residents because “numerous reports were made by citizens across the country of fouled tap water; it is a fact that some of the tap water has even turned bubbly and flammable, as a result of increased methane”(Yale). Moreover, companies that are involved in fracking are not reliable sources because their chemicals are trade secrets and remain unknown which could be harmful to the environment.
Similarly, the increasing rate of fracking was believed by many people to help the United States economically. As mentioned in an early argument, fracking is known to extract a huge amount of natural gas resource which is assumed to help improve the economy. According to a data, as the fracking increases the natural gas price decreases because research shows that “the U. S. fracking revolution has caused natural gas prices to drop 47 percent compared to what the price would have been prior to the fracking revolution in 2013 (Nearing).
An increase in fracking is also believed to save money and reduce gas bills where “gas bills have dropped $13 billion per year from 2007 to 2013 as a result of increased fracking, which adds up to $200 per year for gas-consuming households ( Dews). ” Fracking had great impact on the economy since it dramatically dropped the natural gas price “As a result of this sustained growth in extraction, natural gas prices have fallen substantially in the U. S” since the year 1997(Hausman). However, there are always advantages and disadvantages to processes.
In this case, the environment which surround the fracking operations is a major disadvantage. The environment that surrounds fracking wells could effect local water sources by the leakage or malfunction in the system. resulting in a polluted environment. Some people think that fracking wells do not affect the natural occurrences mentioning that “there are practically zero incidents in which operations-induced seismic effects impacted citizens(Yale). ” Meanwhile, many other people disagree with their opinion.
Drilling deep holes for fracking wells can impact the geology which could lead to the cause of earthquakes. It could also cause other dangerous circumstances and also put thousands of human lives at risks. According to Yale Climate Connections, “between 1967 and 2000, geologists observed a steady background rate of 21 earthquakes of 3. 0 Mw or greater in the central United States per year, when shale gas and other unconventional energy sources began to grow” (Yale). The benefits are overall positive for the economy while placing many lives at risk and harming the environment should not be the resolution.
Moreover, the controversial topic of whether fracking is beneficial or harmful is still being debated today. The Texas legislature should implement a law in which fracking is restricted in areas of Texas in order to promote the safety of many citizens and the preservation of the environment. In essence, the effects of fracking are overall negative and the Texas legislature should initiate a resolution to this issue because fracking causes contamination in groundwater, uses harmful and toxic chemicals, creates health risks for many residents, and has the ability to produce earthquakes.
