- Politics and Social Issues
The truth about fracking
Fracking as a whole
I read the article “The Truth About Fracking”. The first main point in the article is, that there is a lot of controversy about fracking. The fracking companies are being accused of contaminating the water supply with toxic chemicals. The basic technique of hydraulic fracking has been used since the 1940’s. The technique of fracking is a vertical well shaft hits a layer of shale, chemically treated water and sand is blasted blown the well at high pressure to crack open the rocks and liberate natural gas. Recently, the fracking industry has achieved the ability to horizontal drill giving the companies access to 827 trillion cubic feet of unconventional shale. This was when the controversy started because horizontal drilling requires enormous amounts of water and chemicals to mine the shale. Huge ponds and tanks are located near the drill site for the “flowback” water after the shale has been drilled. These huge ponds have the ability to pollute the water supply around the fracking area.
The second main point is, Guilt By definition. There are many scientist currently researching if fracking actually has a direct correlation to polluted water and polluted nature amount the area fracked. The main problem is the “flowback” water must be managed better than it has been on the past. About 75% of all the water and chemicals that are blasted down the hole come back up, Thus leaving a chemical cocktail for the water supply and the environment around the fracking site. The laws state that toxic waters must be contained on site and later transported elsewhere for treatment; however the the pit lining can tear and heavy rains can overflow the pond leading to contamination. The fracking industry is nowhere near a risk-free industry. A few years ago the environmental protection agency fined Chesapeake Fracking for 1 million dollars for contaminating 16 family's water supply with methane. Most of all the fracking companies deny that fracking hurts the environment at all, even though there is a direct correlation between the two.
The third main point is, what the EPA, scientists, and protestors are trying to do to reform about the fracking industry. The EPA ordered the companies to provide clean water to all the families affected by the fracking. As the scientist studied the ways the water could be contaminated many studies led to the belief that the cement was faulty on multiple fracking operations. The citizens protesting the fracking companies goal was to create stronger regulations for the companies, that could possibly make the water safer around the area.
The last main point is, more science, too late? The EPA and scientist are currently working to figure out all the ways water could be contaminated and trying to figure out solutions to the fracking contaminating the environments problem. The EPA is studying old court cases from people whose water was contaminated also they are keeping a close eye on all fracking operations that are currently in use. The EPA is also using computer technology to figure out what is going on underground, where nobody can see. The EPA is also monitoring the chemicals in water before the fracking begins and after the fracking started to see if the water is being contaminated. A solution proposed to the fracking companies is to put a tracer in their chemicals to make it obvious if the chemicals are where they should not be. In the end it would be extremely hard to prevent contamination from fracking companies contaminating water supply, no matter how hard anyone tries.
The author's stance on this topic seems like he is against the fracking companies. I believe this because there seems to be a strong sense of this is something bad and something needs to be done about it. There isn't really anything mentioned about the pros to fracking it's all just cons. Yes, the author supports his stance. He does by giving examples of the families and environment that is being affected by the fracking companies. The evidence the author uses to back his idea on fracking is the stories of high chemicals in water. The form of the evidence is bad things that have happened since fracking became big about 10 years ago with the invention of horizontal drilling. The evidence provided by the author is defiantly sufficient for him to draw his conclusions on fracking. He even persuaded me with all the cases about fracking that is it bad. I don't know of any information that the author could have included to make his article better. I didn't really know anything about fracking until I read this article and the author really hammered the information on me. After reading this article it got me very interested in the fracking industry today. I noticed the article was published in 2011 it led me to question if anything has been implemented to make it safer for the environment. I agree with the authors conclusions because he gave many examples and hard facts to back up his claim. I’m not to sure about the author's credibility because his background is nothing related to geology or anything scientific, it's just podcasting and being an author of multiple books. I think studying the fracking industry in the year 2017 would be very beneficial to better understanding this topic. Other then that there is nothing else, the article pretty much sums it up completely.
Fracking do you support it?
fracking, do you support it
Most of the states affected by fracking are in the midwest.