A Teenager's Opinion on Hydraulic Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing is a drilling technique used for extracting oil and gas from deep underground. A well is drilled vertically for about 1 to 2 miles deep. The well is encased by either steel, or cement to prevent leaking into groundwater. Once situated, fracking fluid is pumped into the well at immense pressure. This pressure cracks the rock & creates fissures for the natural gas and oil to flow into, while simultaneously being collected. Proppants (for example, sand, ceramic particles, etc.) are also pumped into the well to keep the fractures created—open—establishing a route for oil/gas to travel through, even after pressure is released. Once pumped back to the surface, the resources are collected alongside a liquid called “flowback.” This liquid can contain radioactive material, hydrocarbons, and other harmful substances. This wastewater is either stored on site in pits, injected into wells, or disposed of at a treatment facility. The natural sources obtained from fracking in the U.S are gas and oil. In the United States, fracking takes place from Canada, south into Texas, The Great Lakes Region, which stretches from central New York, and south to Virginia. The natural resources obtained from fracking itself are nonrenewable. Acquired from the knowledge and research disclosed to me, fracking is surely not safe. And to some degree, it can be extremely dangerous. As an exemplification, a fracking well malfunctioned in Bradford County, Pa., operated by Chesapeake Energy Corp., causing a drastic spill of thousands of gallons of contaminated water (flowback) for more than 12 hours. This tremendous spill caused the drinking water of three families to become contaminated. But if fracking is as safe as the industry paints it to be, how could the “safe” flowback corrupt the drinking water of those families? I presume then, that fracking is not as harmless as we constructed. Fracking seems to also indirectly affect our natural hazards, and amplify them. The most prominent of these hazards are called induced earthquakes. Induced earthquakes are triggered by human operations with poor disposal of wastewater being the primary cause. Wastewater can be disposed of by injecting it into deep underground wells. These liquids cause pressure that can undermine a fault, bringing it nearer to failure. In the case that it does, it triggers an earthquake, hence the name “induced earthquake.” The factors that determine if an earthquake can be classified as induced are based on whether the earthquake occurred near a wastewater disposal well, and whether that well was operating during the course of time the earthquake took place. For the USGS to decipher whether a particular cluster of earthquakes were natural or induced, they depended on issued literature and dialogues with state officials, and the scientific/earthquake engineering collective. Fracking contributes to seismic activity due to the injection of wastewater (flowback). As we now know, wastewater causes large amounts of pressure to be built and collected, which puts force on the fault, leading it closer to inducing an earthquake (seismic activity). Injection occurs because of fracking, so therefore, fracking contributes to various seismic activity. The states most at risk from induced earthquakes (from fracking) are Oklahoma, southern Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico. The forecast for “chance of damage occurring” in Oklahoma changed from 2016 to 2017 because the 10-12% risk area increased in 2017, but moved from upper left of Oklahoma to upper central Oklahoma; as a result of fracking.

Given these points and research, do the benefits of fracking outweigh the costs? I can’t help but recollect back to those three families whose drinking water was infected by the wastewater collected from fracking in Bradford County, Pa. (“Facts About Fracking” by Marc Lallanilla). Envisioning this occurrence on a larger scale, if the wastewater would have affected a main water source for an entire community, I hypothesize that the liability of fracking would have been investigated immediately due to a very likely public frustration. Fracking has caused a significant increase in induced earthquakes, “Significant damage was experienced in Oklahoma during the past year as was forecasted in the 2016 model. However, the significantly decreased number of earthquakes in north Texas & Arkansas was not expected, and this was likely due to a decline in injection activity.” Based on this statement, it suggests that less injection activity led to less earthquakes, and in return increasing the security of the residing residents. Increasing injection (which means increasing the operation of fracking also) is the same as willingly contaminating people’s drinking sources, voluntarily inducing earthquakes that also put these people’s home & safety at risk, and even causing them health problems such as asthma, organ damage, cancer, and neurological problems. On the basis of the evidence presented, the most methodical conclusion is that the cons outweigh the actual benefits of fracking, and finding a new, reliable source is the best choice from an analytical perspective for ensuring our future.