Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process to maximize the extraction of underground resources by injecting millions of gallons of fluid and chemicals deep underground to pry out natural gas that is tightly locked away (United States ES-4). Natural gas provides almost 25% of the United State’s energy supply and is projected to provide about 50% by 2035 (Manuel A199). The article, “In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science”, from The Houston Chronicle and written by Thomas Kurth, says “fracking provides a significantly cleaner from of fossil fuel” (Kurth, par. 2). The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, actually endorses fracking, saying “Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and [fracking] is one way of accessing that vital resource” (Hydraulic Fracturing, par. 1). However, fracking is not the way to solve our energy crisis like the EPA and Kurth’s article make it out to be. Fracking, in fact, causes more harm than good. This article hides the true environmental consequences of fracking by giving insignificant reasons to why fracking should be a large source of energy.
As stated earlier, injecting fluids underground at high pressures is involved in fracking. There is one big consequence for doing this. Some of the injected fluids remain trapped underground. Many of these fluids are considered hazardous, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater. The EPA wrote in a report, “hydraulic fracturing poses a minimal threat to drinking water and additional or further study is not warranted at this time” (Manuel A199). Clearly, they do not plan to stop fracking. There is a large amount of evidence that shows how large of a threat fracking is. There are a number of cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the prime suspect in incidences of polluted drinking water. In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded where residents have reported changes in water quality following fracking operations near their homes (Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells, par. 2). Additionally, each hydraulic fracture requires two to four million gallons of water (United States 64). There are much better uses for that water than using it for fracking. For example, instead of using four million gallons of water for fracking, why not give that water to victims of natural disasters?
The EPA says, “Water pollution prevention and control measures are critical to improving water quality and reducing the need for costly wastewater and drinking water treatment. Because water pollution can come from many different sources, a variety of pollution prevention and control measures are needed” (Pollution Control). By participating in the process of fracking, the government contradicts this statement. Polluting water sources is an irreversible consequence of fracking. This has become so apparent, that in February 2011, Buffalo, New York, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania both banned the process of fracking. Even though hydraulic fracturing has not yet started in Buffalo, the city does not want to face any sort of fracking repercussions (Trotta, par. 1, par. 4).
Kurth’s article mentions the HBO documentary Gasland (Kurth par. 1). He does this to show how fracking has recently gained media attention. Ironically, Gasland is a documentary about how fracking causes harm to the environment. In the documentary, Pennsylvania native Josh Fox received an offer from an energy company to lease his land for nearly $100,000. He declines the offer and instead starts investigating the repercussions of fracking. He travels west to Colorado and Wyoming, where fracking is very common. He finds flammable, filthy water, sick people and animals, and families who no longer use their water wells but buy all their drinking water from grocery stores (Hale, par. 3, par. 4). This documentary opened the eyes of all of its viewers and was one of the key motivators for the anti-fracking movement. Gasland was so influential, it was nominated for Best Documentary at the 2011 Academy Awards.
Kurth also writes, “In 2004, an EPA study reported no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground” (Kurth, par. 4). It is interesting that Kurth used as statistic from 2004. Maybe the EPA did not report any instances of contamination seven years ago. But it is clearly shown in Gasland, which was released in 2010, and in other reported instances that water was defiantly contaminated. There is a scene in the documentary where Fox lights faucet water on fire (Gasland). Last time I checked, water does not light on fire unless there is some chemical in it. Chemicals in water would make the water contaminated. Kurth used a well outdated and proven wrong statistic to try to boost his argument.
At one point in his article, Kurth addresses the Safe Water Drinking Act in the energy bill of 2005. He talks about how natural gas drilling was exempt from the act (Kurth, par. 4). This is commonly known as the Halliburton Loophole (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs). He goes on to talk about how diesel was the only fluid that was banned but was reported to be used between 2005 and 2009 in nineteen states. He continues to say that the EPA took no action (Kurth Par. 4). By talking about this he contradicts his entire article. Isn’t it a bad thing that diesel was used for fracking even thought it was banned? It does not make much sense to why he would write a negative paragraph about fracking when the purpose of the article is in support of fracking. To appeal the Halliburton Loophole, the FRAC Act has been proposed to Congress. This bill will also require natural gas companies to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQ).
While reading Kurth’s article, I noticed that even though Kurth is in support of fracking, he never provided concrete evidence and examples to why fracking is good. He notes that people have problems with it but a large part of his article is about the process of fracking and how it works. He assumes that his readers know nothing about the process have no opinion on the issue. He seems well informed by citing statements from the EPA. But because the EPA is pro-fracking and is his only source, all of his facts seem credible and all try to make fracking out as a positive energy source.
Fracking is not the only source of energy that is looked down upon. However, it is one of the only ones where people feel its negative effects almost immediately. Water contamination is not the only consequence from fracking. Gas extraction has documented and measurable destructive effects on air quality as well (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs). Kurth is trying to convince his readers that fracking is a good and clean way to obtain natural gas. He could not be more wrong. Even though fracking might be efficient, the negative effect far out weigh the positive ones.
Works Cited
Gasland. Dir. Josh Fox. Perf. Josh Fox. HBO Documentary Films, 2010. TV.
Hale, Mike. "The Costs of Natural Gas, Including Flaming Water." www.nytimes.com. 20 June 2010. The New York Times. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
"Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs." Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox. 2010. n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
"Hydraulic Fracturing." www.epa.gov. 9 Feb. 2011. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
"Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells." Earthworksaction.org. n.d. EarthWorks. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
Kurth, Thomas. "In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science." www.chron.com. 15 Feb. 2011. The Houston Chronicle. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
Manuel, John. "EPA Tackles Fracking." Environmental Health Perspectives 118.5 (2010): A199. Print.
"Pollution Control." www.water.epa.gov. n.d. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
Trotta, Daniel, and Edith Honan. "Buffalo, NY Bans Hydraulic Fracturing." Reuters.com. Ed. David Gregorio. 08 Feb. 2011. Reuters. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
United States. U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Oklahoma City: Groundwater Protection Council, 2009. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment