Problems Caused by Fracking in Colorado - Case Study Example

Problems Caused by Fracking in Colorado

Introduction

The August 2011 Colorado earthquake followed the injection of 4.9 million cubic meters of wastewater, seven times greater than that injected during the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in the 1960s - a standard model of tremblers instigated by underground industrial operations. Hydraulic fracturing commonly referred to as “Fracking” is the process used is the production of natural gas. It involves the injection of water mixed with other toxic chemicals into shale rocks at a reasonably high pressure. The purpose of injecting the fluid into the ground is to ensure that the shale rocks can eventually crack and release the natural gas. Each fracturing site requires 40,000 gallons of chemicals as well as 8 million gallons of water. Usually, there is a hole drilled using a pipeline through which engineers inject the fracking fluid. In the United States, there are more than 1.1 million active gas wells. As a result, the United States needs 72 trillion water gallons and 360 billion gallons of chemicals. These active gas wells produce a total of 300,000 barrels of natural gas (Thompson 557). Without a doubt, fracking has triggered a controversial debate in the United States because it causes numerous adverse environmental effects. The amount of gas released from the process does not justify the vast destruction that the process has to the environment. It is unfortunate that many politicians do not come out explicitly regarding the adverse effects of the fracking process. In regions where fracking occurs on a large scale, the toxic gas and other emissions from the fracking sites continuously expose the population to health risks. The government has not demonstrated any commitment to protect people as well as the environment from the undesirable effects of the fracking process. Researchers have focused on outlining the most outstanding environmental consequences of the fracking process. The fracking process destroys the environment, places the lives of community members at a great risk, and is not justifiable in the production of 300,000 natural gas barrels.

Supporting Arguments

The process of fracking contaminates ground water. Specifically, the release of methane gas and other toxic chemicals from the fracturing site is a common aspect. Water contamination compromises the health of people living near fracking sites (Savka 44). It makes them vulnerable to developing respiratory diseases, neurological damage, and sensory complications. The toxic water from the fracking site finds its way into sewage plants without any system of effectively treating the water and reducing the level of contamination. As a result, the sewage plants channel the contaminated water into different rivers. The water in these rivers has registered high levels of radioactivity. According to Federal Regulators, radioactivity in these rivers surpasses the safe standards that are acceptable. Communities living in Colorado are at a very high risk of consuming contaminated water and developing a wide range of health complications (Wickens 3). The wastewater contains radioactive elements, characterized as having the potential to cause cancer. Over 70% of the fracturing fluid remains on the ground despite its high-level content of toxic chemicals. Experts have revealed that such water is not subject biodegradation. There is no existing plan for regulatory measures governing the fracking process and ensuring that it does not contaminate water. For this reason, the process is very risky both to the environment and to the communities living nearby.

The fracking process leads to the release of radon, which is a highly dangerous gas. Recent studies have indicated that communities living near fracking sites register a 39% higher exposure to radon (Savka 45). Although radon is tasteless and invisible, it can cause lung cancer. Specific statistics indicate that radon is the second factor that causes lung cancer mortalities in the United States. Its effects are comparable to those of smoking. Each year, 21,000 lung cancer mortalities are attributable to radon. The treatment and management of cancer have drained the United States’ healthcare sector, leaving only minimal resources for future cancer patients as well as other diseases. For this reason, any process that increases the development of lung cancer among people serves to compromise the efforts made by the healthcare sector to combat the prevalence of cancer. Research findings have keenly documented the adverse effects of radon, which exists in higher concentrations near fracking sites (Wickens 4). Unless policy makers design effective strategies for reducing the release of radon into the air, more residents of Colorado will be at a remarkably high risk of developing lung cancer due to radon contamination.

The fracking industry has triggered the development of a sand mining boom, increasing the level of air and water contamination. The sand mining boom involves the use of silica, which is a highly dangerous compound. According to health experts, silica has the potential to prevent effective breathing and to trigger respiratory irritation (Savka 46). Moreover, silica poisoning causes the obstruction of the Airwave and interferes with the functioning of the lungs. Both short and long-term exposure to silica eventually causes bronchitis, lung inflation, and finally emphysema. Other individuals exposed to silica are likely to develop silicosis, an incurable disease of the lungs. Individuals working in the silica industry register a high risk of developing silicosis, which can cause mortality among the workers. Health experts have diagnosed silicosis in Colorado, a factor that goes a long way to prove that the fracking industry is too dangerous for human lives. As the workers continue to drill more fracking sites, the sand mining industry expands to meet the emerging demand. The sand mines only lead to the increase of silica poisoning. It is unfortunate that the sand mining industry is likely to expand in the future a factor that will place more people at risk of developing various health complications.

The fracking process has negative effects on public infrastructure and services. The process requires too much water a factor that introduces a shortage of water in the communities living the fracking sites (Thompson 556). Each fracking process requires over 8 million of water. A fact worth noting is that such water does not find its way back to the water cycle. As a result, the fracking process only serves to increase water shortage in areas near the fracking sites. The shortage of water is not a new concept and its ability to inconvenience life is not something that people can take for granted. Water shortage translates to the lack of a primary resource that people need for survival (White 645). With lower levels of water, the people face the compulsion of developing alternative methods of making water available. In Colorado, it is impossible to underestimate the effects of the fracking industry on water supply in the region. There is an increasing uncertainty concerning the availability of adequate safe water in the future. Currently, the use of too much water in the fracking industry contributes to the depletion of the available underground water sources.

The fracking activity in Colorado has affected the geological stability of the region. The excessive drilling of holes and injection of fluid into the underground layers triggers seismic activity. Previously, Colorado was remarkably stable, according to geological studies. However, in the recent past, the region has registered movements of faults that had never registered any form of movement in a period of more than a million years. There is an increasing risk the occurrence of earthquakes (Savka 47). Worse still, it is possible to predict when the earthquakes will occur. However, there is evidence suggesting that the rising levels of seismic activities are attributable to the injection of water into the wells in Colorado. The state government is yet to address the issue of increased seismic activity in the region and the risks that it poses for the future. The occurrence of earthquakes is an environmental hazard that destroys property and lives. Moreover, earthquakes destroy the existing infrastructure. Without a doubt, if the fracking activity continues in the future, the Colorado region will experience a series of earthquakes that will place the lives of people at risk. The drilling of fracking wells is responsible for making Colorado geologically unstable and making it prone to earthquakes.

Counter Arguments and Rebuttal

The main justification for the fracking activity is the release of natural gas used as an important fuel in the United States. The existing fracking sites contribute to the release of 300,000 barrels of natural gas. Many state governments have been in support of the fracking industry believing that plays a critical role in the provision of natural gas. However, a critical analysis of the adverse effects and risk factors attributable to the fracking process reveals that no amount of gas produced can justify the level of environmental degradation, pollution, and increasing mortality rates (Steliga, Kluk, and Jakubowicz 2185). The exploitation of natural resources such as the production of natural gas from shale rocks should be sustainable. Sustainability means that the processes involved should not compromise the environment in any way and should register minimal adverse effects. In the fracturing industry, sustainability does not exist. Specifically, the process leads to numerous risk factors to the communities living near the fracking sites. The people are likely to develop health complications and eventually death because of air and water pollution. Processes that do not promote environmental conservation need a critical review. The natural gas produced is of minimal value compared to the destruction of the environment and the health risk factors that the people experience. It is irrational to place the lives of people at risk and compromise environmental conservation efforts only to produce 300,000 barrels of natural gas.

For many years, stakeholders in the fracking industry, as well as the leaders of Colorado, have stayed clear of mentioning the negative effects of the fracking process. The focus of these stakeholders has been on the fact that the industry and other related industries such as the sand mining industry have registered growth (White 647). The focus has been on the number of new jobs created by these industries. It is unfortunate that the process only increases employment opportunities while subjecting the workers to unsafe working conditions and risky environments. Although Colorado relies on the industry as a source of income, it is clear that the industry does not deserve a place in the future because it is attributable to enormous damage to the environment (Intelligence Debates). It is time for politicians to stop supporting the fracking industry and be more open concerning the findings from recent research on the health risk factors that the people face. For a long time, the exploitation of natural gas taken place at high rates with the consolation that it will provide an additional source of energy to societies that do not have sufficient supplies of other energy sources. However, such a thinking process is unacceptable because it does not take into consideration the impact of the process on different stakeholders. Without a doubt, the contribution of the fracking industry to the American economy has been more negative than positive. Areas like Colorado that practice fracking register low prices for houses. The value of homes in Colorado has gone down remarkably.

Conclusion

Evidently, the fracking industry does not deserve to be in place because it contributes to numerous health and environmental effects. The entire fracking process only serves to compromise the government's efforts to promote environmental conservation. The fracking process is attributable to air and water pollution. The fracking sites and neighboring regions are at a great risk of both air and water pollution at remarkably high levels. Health experts have outlined the numerous risk factors associated with the fracking process. It is unfortunate that there are no regulations in place to ensure that the fracking process has minimal effects on the environment and the people. Without a doubt, people in the neighboring communities are susceptible to developing diseases such as lung cancer, respiratory diseases, silicosis, and others. Notably, all these diseases cause an economic burden on the healthcare sector because the people require treatment. The pollution near the Colorado fracking sites serves to compromise the government's efforts to combat diseases such as cancer. The primary justification for the process is its capacity to produce remarkable levels of natural gas. The justification is not valid because of the immense damages to the environment that the process causes.