Hydraulic Fracturing is explained by ProPublica as the “injection of more than a million gallons of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure down and across into horizontally drilled wells as far as 10,000 feet below the surface.”
If this sounds like an energy-intensive, earth-impacting engagement, its because it is.
Hydro-fracking, as ProPublica continues to explain, is used in 90% of natural gas wells across the United States. It requires such significant quantities of water, sand, and chemicals because the drill needs enough force to penetrate thick sheets of rock that comprise the Earth’s core. This method delivers enormous quantities of natural gas that then comprise the international market.
Despite its environmental intensity, organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute promote hydro-fracking as a growingly eco-friendly procedure. API cites safety mechanisms such as the way concrete is pumped through the well to protect ground water from contamination, but it is still causing greater potential harm than this small allowance.
Dangersoffracking.com points out the bigger issues with these methods. It takes anywhere from 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job, depending on the well’s size. This is an enormous, indirect tax on the environment and its thinning clean water supplies. Furthermore, add in an extra 40,000 gallons of chemicals (including lead, uranium, mercury, radium, methanol, and formaldehyde) multiplied by 18 times a well can be fracked, and we are now looking at 72 trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of chemicals being pumped into current gas wells alone.
To further magnify these dangers is the immense lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry. With growing criticism of the industry’s cursory fracturing practices, officials such as former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator Al Armendariz receive the punishment. According to Brendan DeMelle of the Huffington Post, in May of 2012 Armendariz submitted his letter of resignation due to comments he made two years previously that had been circulated by Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma. Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors were leading officials in the oil and gas industry, sparking great controversy over the industry’s influence on environmental policy.
As the debate surrounding hydro-fracking continues on, it is imperative to stay conscious of its potential environmental and health effects on the American public, as explained by dangersoffracking.com, as well as the imbalance of power visible in the case with Armendariz. False information is easily disseminated by large, corporate lobbying arms that can only eschew the truth if they are allowed to do so. Hydraulic fracturing undoubtedly alters the environments in which it exists, so it is in the public’s responsibility to hold these practitioners accountable.
http://www.propublica.org/special/hydraulic-fracturing-national
http://iehn.org/overview.naturalgashydraulicfracturing.php
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/exploration-and-production/hydraulic-fracturing/hydraulic-fracturing-safe-oil-natural-gas-extraction
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/al-armendariz_b_1515948.html
Nicely written blog. I agree with your last statement of how it is the public’s responsibility to hold practitioners accountable. It is important that we keep hydrofracking but then we have to think about society and all the health concerns.
Great blog! I think that you did a great job in listing and explain the various disadvantages of fracking. I agree that we must stay vigilant and conscious of the potential environmental and health effects of fracking on the American public. It is quite hard to decipher between false and truthful information that is provided to us.