Procedures Involved in Fracking - Research Paper Example

[Name] [Teacher’s Name] ENG 101 [Date] Fracking Hydraulic fracturing is a process which extracts several forms of natural gas and petroleum. This process has been labeled a hazard to the environment. It utilizes pressurized fluid to extract the substances from the rock layer; however, it contaminates water and ruins air quality. This paper will analyze the process of natural gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing. In the process, the paper will define the procedures involved in fracking, the benefits it possess and the adverse effects it has on society and the environment. In addition, this paper will prove that fracking is a risk to the environment and the people living in nearby areas where fracking takes place. It will also illustrate that the negative attributes of fracking greatly outweigh the positives. Though many officials and researchers have credited fracking and claimed that it will improve the economy by reducing energy costs and creating more jobs, the data is greatly exaggerated and this paper will reveal the actual facts of the subject matter. Even before taking fracking into consideration, environmentalists have already expressed great concern on the level of industrial pollution and this process will only increase the adverse effects that society has been trying to reduce. Taking all the scientific evidence into consideration, it is clear that hydraulic fracturing is a hazardous process that should not be a part of modern day society, and in detail, this paper will further solidify this point. Firstly, the paper will illustrate the methodologies utilized during hydraulic fracturing. The process involves the injection of high pressure fluids deep into the rock layers. This leads to the formation of fissures within the layers of rock formation. This leads to an increase in the flow of natural gas, in turn increasing the amount of gas that is available for extraction. One of the main areas of concern is the composition of the fluids that are used in the extraction process. In fact, several states have created laws to regulate the amount of harmful additives that are used in this process. For example, Barer and Gordon reported that the legislation in Texas requires fracking companies to send a list of the ingredients used in the fracking to the residents living near the drilling sites (par. 1). The major component of fracking fluids is water. It also contains a solid component in the form of ceramic or sand beads. The components which mainly bring concern to the public are the chemical additives, which are sometimes toxic. In an investigation carried out in 2012, Dallas Morning News discovered that fifty five thousand pounds of chemicals were used for hydraulic fracturing. Many experts on extraction of resources have defended these chemicals claiming that a majority of these substances are present in food. Marsa defends the process stating that there is a shortage of gas and petroleum in the country and this is a way of compensation for these recourses (62-70). Other researchers have defended the process of fracking, stating that its benefits vastly outweigh its negative attributes. The process enables energy production to be carried out in areas where oil supply is insufficient. Arguments concerning the impact of fracking on the environment have been made, however, the process is still more environment friendly than other energy sources such as coal. Natural gas extracted from fracking contains less carbon than other fossil fuels; so in essence, the energy source itself is environmentally friendly. However, the fracking process has extremely negative impacts on the environment. It poisons water supplies, using a large amount of freshwater and turning it into waste water. The process has a high risk of spillage occurring, well failures and blowouts. This results in the contamination of drinking water. Many experts favor fracking due to its affordable costs. The cost of a barrel of oil is approximately $100 whereas natural gas obtained from fracking costs approximately $20. In addition, oil imports comprise a large percentage of the country’s trade deficit. Introducing this procedure would boost the economy of the country and reduce the trade deficit. Therefore, fuel and energy costs will be greatly reduced for the people and government. However, the costs of cleaning the contaminated water from fracking are very expensive. Hence, when calculating the financial benefits of fracking individuals need to consider costs in repairing the damage incurred during drilling (‘The Costs of fracking’, par. 3). In Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas spent $109 000 for the removal of methane gas that had polluted water wells in 14 homes (‘The Costs of fracking’, par. 4). Other states have also incurred costs for purifying water in residential areas. In Colorado there has been an ongoing purification process for approximately eight years (‘The Costs of fracking’, par. 7). The contaminated water also needs to be replaced, and this placement requires a lot of monetary input. In addition to removing the methane from the water, Cabot & Oil also spent $193 000 for replacing the water they had contaminated. The contamination of water can also spread to major systems, which increases the costs in water treatment for the Municipality. New York has one of the largest Fracking reserves and if this process contaminated the water system it would require approximately six billion dollars to purify. This shows that fracking is a very risky process and endangers the community (Gambrick, par. 4). The procedure has detrimental effects on human health due to the toxicity of the chemical substances present in the fracking fluid. The equipment used for transportation and other drilling procedures also causes a large amount of air pollution. The workers in the drilling sites are under risk of developing respiratory diseases. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has published several articles expressing the high risk these workers have of contracting lung disease (‘Worker exposure to Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing’, par. 10). However, the fact that fracking reduces costs incurred by the government means that it has more money to use for other policies such as healthcare and other social benefits. The main disease associated with hydraulic fracturing is silicosis which was reported to have incurred approximately fifty million dollars worth of medical costs (‘The Costs of fracking’, par. 5). Residents near drilling sites have also been reported to have suffered other medical complications. For example, headaches, nausea, eye problems which all incur costs such as healthcare expenses, less productivity and absence from work. The pollution from fracking also causes smog in the ozone layer. These results in exposure to diseases associated with ultraviolet radiation. Steingraber and Nolan reported that in Arkansas’ Fayetteville area, the costs that resulted from fracking summed up to approximately ten million dollars in 2008 (par. 3). The process of fracking also results in the depletion of natural resources. This results in conversion of farms and forests into industrial mining zones. It also replaces plantations with structures such as roads and well pads. The operation in the Wyoming region has resulted in reduction the habitat of deer and other animals. The deer population in this region has decreased by 56% from 2001 to 2010. Another toxic component of fracking is methane gas, which is one of the major contributing factors in global warming. The process also results in unnecessary cleanup costs which may be inherited by the taxpayers. On the contrary, taxes are also likely to be reduced if fracking is fully implemented due to the increase in the government budget from less oil trade. Another alternative should be formulated as numerous adverse effects result from the fracking process. The transportation of substances from drilling sites to other areas frequently results in damage of roads which the state has to repair using taxpayers’ money. The increased number of public services has also been one of the adverse effects which have been attributed to fracking areas. The large amounts of water used in fracking require new infrastructure to be built. Though this is a good opportunity for creating jobs, the projects require large amounts of money. In Texas, similar projects over the past 50 years required approximately 400 million dollars to support the mining structures. These are just a few of the numerous negative effects fracking has on humans and the environment. The procedure possess some benefits however they lose their values when one compares them to the negative attributes. The process has long term effects which could affect future generations in ways that can not be reversed. These effects are severe and this process should not be accepted in the society. Furthermore, the money present in the industry makes the regulation process ineffective. Other methods such as natural alternative energy are far more useful to society than fracking. Global warming is an area of concern and the methane gas produced during fracking only worsens the situation. Summing up this data shows that fracking is a social hazard and should not be legal. Works Cited Barer, David and Gordon Olivia. Legislation Would Have Fracking Fluid Recipes Sent to Landowners Nearby. Texas. 2013. Web. March 27, 2013. Gambrick, Gail. Fracking: Pro and Con. Tufts Now. 2012. Web. March 27, 2013 Marsa, Linda. The truth about fracking. 2011. Discover, 32(4), 62-70. Steingraber, Sandra and Nolan, Kathleen. No to NY Fracking: ‘We Will Not Compromise On the Health of Our Families. Common Dreams. 2012. Web. March 28, 2013 ‘The Costs of Fracking’. Environment America Research and Policy Center. 2012. Web. March 27, 2013 ‘Worker exposure to Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing’. United States Department of Labour. n.d Web. March 28, 2013 You would need to send me what the instructor means by see MLA 5.6.2., because the indentations are not all messed up like he/she claims. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/12/ (This is the site I used). Read More