1

Madeline Arndt

Mrs. Erskine

Dual Enrollment English

12/11/2017

The Implications of Fracking

Bountiful financial gain and broader access to potential powerful resources sounds like a

match made in heaven at first glance. These two concepts are vital to the success of a world

power, such as the United States. The United States has been experimenting with hydraulic

fracturing, ‘fracking’, since around 1860 (“Fracking”). The process, although to some is

successful in regards to natural gas extraction, is irrefutably a danger to the many complicated

systems of the environment. The way hydraulic fracturing occurs is rather crude in its practice.

Although fracking has the ability to unlock countless natural gas reserves, it also has the ability

to drastically harm the environment. The potential benefits of hydraulic fracturing leave industry

leaders with hope, whereas environmentalists and affected citizens nationwide condemn its

danger.

In order to fully understand the consequences of hydraulic fracturing, one must be

educated on the process of fracking itself. It is known that deep within the earth many

sandstones, shales, and limestones have natural gas deposits trapped within them, usually formed

when dead organisms within the rocks decompose (Brantley and Meyendorff). Once these

deposits are located, a well is drilled deep into rock deposits and a water mixture is shot into the

well in a highly pressurized fashion. Due to the immense pressure applied, the water mixture

fractures the stone deposits allowing the natural gas to escape to the head of the well (Shukman).

Chemicals added to the water are intended to kill off the bacteria that may be clogging the well.
 Arndt 2

Often times sand is inserted into the wells to prop up the fractured rocks below (“Fracking”).

This practice, as can be assumed, drastically affects local and regional ecosystems. The

technique used today is different from the origins of hydraulic fracturing, in which explosives

were used. Although the practice has been refined, it has not changed since around 1940, in

which the use of water and chemicals was adopted (Thompson 37). Although the implementation

of hydraulic fracturing poses real threats to the environment, it isn’t all in vain.

Natural gas is a clean energy source comparable to other fossil fuel resources previously

used by the United States. Out of every recognized fossil fuel, natural gas does in fact burn the

cleanest (“The Advantages of Natural Gas”). Even environmentalists agree that this source of

fuel has little to no impact on the current fragile atmosphere. Hydraulic fracturing is certainly

considered a rising industry in North America as a whole. The United States specifically

continues to explore the abundant resource with hopes of not having to confer abroad. Its

convenience is attractive in regards to homeland availability. Natural gas deposits uncovered in

the US are 100% owned by the US, unlike oil and other fuels which the nation receives a vast

majority of from foreign partners (“The Advantages of Natural Gas”).

The efficiency of natural gas excites industry leaders unlike any other resource. Once

natural gas is fracked, the distribution of the gas occurs in a way unlike other fossil fuels. Coal

requires large trucks to transport the bulk across the country. Oil requires tankers to carefully

roadtrip to each and every destination. Natural gas travel via pipeline. Pipelines, although have Commented [1]: although "they" have

been known to also be a threat to the environment, transport the gas safely to predisposed

locations. The structure of underground pipelines shield the resource from weathered

environment, and travel at a faster rate than other fossil fuel transport vehicles. Hydraulic
 Arndt 3

fracturing enables the immediate transportation of this valuable resource, making it easily

transferable to usage.

Fracking offers an efficient and effective way to extract these pocket-like natural gas

deposits from deep within the earth. As successful as this practice is in reference to extracting

this resource, some environmentalists argue that fracking is distracting lawmakers from

exploring more sustainable energy sources (Shukman). The widespread implementation of

renewable power sources has been overlooked by lawmakers due to the recent fascination with

fracking. As other world powers evolve to the renewable revolution, the United States is caught

reevaluating the tired non-renewable options from days past. The devolution of resource use in

turn continues to anger environmentalists. Although natural gas is a clean energy source, the

process of extracting inherently is hazardous.

The institution of slick hydraulic fracturing may be efficient and effective, but other

viewpoints heavily weigh the environmental impacts. Fracking has proven to be a danger to

citizens surrounding extraction zones. In Pennsylvania, the impact is rather suspicious; due to the

lack of regulations required to frack, countless hazardous chemicals infiltrated the bedrock of

areas in which public drinking water is found. The National Public Radio did extensive research

into the blindsiding effects of these unregulated hazardous chemicals. The findings concluded

that certain loopholes, set in place by Dick Cheney from the most recent Bush administration,

allowed slick water hydraulic fracturing companies to cut corners to use hazardous chemicals

without public knowledge. There are over hundreds of chemicals commonly used in the fracking

process, and none of them are regulated by the government (What Chemicals are Used). Wide

spread instances in which well water was compromised by the menagerie of chemicals remained

hidden from the public. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, under the Bush
 Arndt 4

administration validated false information on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, indicating to the

public that there was virtually no risk in the practice (Dimock, PA: ‘Ground Zero’). These claims

have since been recognized as false, and now research from the EPA is beginning to accurately

record the potential harms of fracking. The damage to certain areas has already been done, and

unsuspecting citizens have experienced the danger first hand. Trust between citizens and industry

leaders is low - which is warranted due to these unacceptable actions.

In Oklahoma similar controversies exist between concerned citizens, as well as

environmentalists, and the fracking industry. The nature of fracking is rather aggressive and

requires brute force in order to accomplish its task. The ground on-site is already altered when

deep wells are carved into the layers below. Once workers have effectively finished the wells,

violent pressures of water drill into the bedrock at an alarming pace. This chemically ridden

water fractures the earth below activating seismic activity that is uncommon to areas like

Oklahoma (“Exploring the Links Between Earthquakes”). The current seismic activity in

Oklahoma is uncharacteristically odd. Generally there are no earthquakes in Oklahoma due to its

distance from any major fault lines. Recent studies have begun to piece together evidence that

fracking has contributed to the recent spike in earthquake activity. Previously it was believed that

drills could only affect seismic activity if they were situated directly above a fault line. This has

since been proven to be untrue (“Exploring the Links Between Earthquakes”). Citizens are

overwhelmingly concerned, for again the most recent Bush administration contributed to the vast

discrepancies in safety regarding this practice as well as the widespread implementation of the

drilling. Safety concerns recently have heavily affected the public and environmental views on

fracking, and generally the opinions are turning more oppositional.

 Arndt 5

As industries rejoice for efficiency and abundance of the hydraulic fracturing system,

others fall skeptic to the environmental and physical safety concerns that surround the practice.

The environmental implications of fracking increasingly grow - negatively. The immediate effect

that faces citizens near drilling sites is also in question regarding safety. The factors that paint

fracking in a negative light are undeniable, but the extraction of natural gas is certainly a

balancing factor. The risk required to attain the cleanest fossil fuel is quite irrefutable, but the

reward thereafter is quite compelling in support of the practice.

 Arndt 6

Works Cited

“The Advantages of Natural Gas.” PSEG, Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated ,

www.pseg.com/business/small_large_business/convert/advantages.jsp.

Brantley, Susan L., and Anna Meyendorff. “The Facts on Fracking.” The New York

Times, The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2013,

www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/the-facts-on-fracking.html.

“Dimock, PA: ‘Ground Zero’ In The Fight Over Fracking.” State Impacts, NPR,

stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/dimock/.

“Exploring the Link Between Earthquakes and Oil and Gas Disposal Wells.” NPR, NPR,

stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/tag/earthquakes/.

“Fracking.” Leading Issues, SIRS,

www.bing.com/cr?IG=E0AD159F32A8450ABD2FCBA2DA14426D&CID=0B7CD698

7E0263C52F65DDCE7F046286&rd=1&h=TmxN4yldbooOE4I104crAwtW02Q5nQXdx

fWupHZp4vo&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fnbukowski.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f2%2f3%

2f0%2f3%2f23035502%2fsirs_issues_2018.pdf&p=DevEx,5074.1.

“What Chemicals Are Used.” FracFocus, fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-

are-used.

Shukman, David. “What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial?” BBC News, BBC, 16

Dec. 2015, www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401.

Thompson, Tamara. Fracking. Greenhaven Press, a Part of Gale, Cengage Learning,

2013.
Arndt 7