Fracking: Devil or Hero
Essay Preview: Fracking: Devil or Hero
Report this essay
Jaisleen KaurProf. StanleyENG 111-2IH/2JH7th Nov. 2017Fracking: Devil or Hero    Fuel is a common need of everyday life; from turning on lights to driving cars, manufacturing and delivering the products people use-from phones to automobiles- societies require a source of energy. To extract natural gases and oil, fracking process is a cheap alternative renewable source. Many countries hope to free vast natural gas reserves through a fracking process, but attempts have been disappointing in a few countries, such as England, Poland, France (McGlynn 8). Fracking methods being used to unlock gas deposits deep inside the Earth had led to widespread challenges, which leads to the controversy in the public toward the fracking (Konkel A231). Supporters argue fracking is safe and there is no proven case of hydrofracking contaminating drinking water (Inman 29). Natural gas can revitalize the economies, reduce the dependence on foreign oil, and will prevent the opportunity for the countries to develop alternative energy source and creates jobs, so its uses should be expanded (qtd in McGlynn 11). Opponents argue the chemicals used in fracking fluids are toxic and pose a danger to public health and the environment and contribute to air and water pollution. Industries are not honest with the public about the danger of fracking, and its uses should not be expanded (qtd in McGlynn 10).     Hydrofracking involves the injecting of water, chemicals, sand, and other materials under high pressure into shale formation to break the rocks to release trapped gas inside (Schimdt 1). Opponents claim wastewater released through fracking contains toxic chemicals which possess potentially huge health and safety risks (Konkel A231). The procedure can contaminate drinking water with toxic chemicals. The toxic chemicals found in wastewater can cause diseases which may not have any cure. The Freelance Science journalist, Lindsey Konkel said “chemicals found in wastewater had unfavorable consequences such as decreased semen quality, increases the risk of miscarriage and birth defects, low birth rates and lead to cancer” (qtd in Konkel A232). Some chemicals are harmless, but some are extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead. According to the study, the chemicals like benzene and lead cause the cancer and damage the part of body like kidneys and brain. “Fracking takes a lot of water for a process which increases the volume of wastewater in few years of fracking boom” (Konkel A231). People living near fracking sites have the main risk of life due to exposure to these kinds of chemicals. Nicole Deziel, is an exposure scientist at Yale University claims “The water produced through process is more dangerous than the fluid used to frack it” (qtd in Konkel A231).     The opponent’s big concern is “to stop the exposing humans to wastewater through waterbodies, if it happens it could contaminate the water sources for decades” (qtd in Konkel A232). It affects the environment; affects the fertility of soil, impacts the life periods of plants and contributes to pollution (Konkel A234). The presence of radionuclides in wastewater, includes the waste production issue, such as the salinity on radioactive levels in wastewater (Brown A53). It results in a high level of radioactive in stream sediments and the use of deep injection wells for storing fracking wastewater said Valerie J. Brown in the article “Radionuclides in Fracking Wastewater” (qtd in Brown A52). The study shows most produced water contains bromide, which can combine with other toxic chemicals to pollute drinking water (Brown A53). Avner Vengosh, a Duke University Researcher claims, “Once you have release of fracking fluid into the environment, you end up with a radioactive legacy” (qtd in Brown A53).
Opponents claimed industries are not being honest to the people about the danger of fracking (qtd in McGlynn 10). Industries are not taking necessary steps to protect the environment and communities from toxic wastewater that results from fracking. Peter Heywood, the freelance journalist wrote in the article “Fracking Safer and Greener,” “researchers are even not sure which chemicals are more harmful and need to be replaced” (qtd in Heywood 42). Researchers are replacing the chemicals with the harmless chemicals but they are not sure about the chemicals; they are not sure replacing the chemicals could be beneficial or not (Heywood 42). The author of the article “Radionuclides in Fracking Wastewater” claims researchers are suffering from the lack of access to the treatment practices due to lack of trust between them and industries (Brown A53).    Energy Administrative said they are doing their best to improve fracking.  Researchers are replacing the toxic chemicals with eco-friendly chemicals. Fracking products are developed to meet the strict environmental protection requirements in leading oil and gas companies, like Halliburton and Schlumberger (Heywood 45). The industries are using ingredients sourced from the food industries and also fracturing the environmentally friendly surfactants (Heywood 43). Exposure scientist Deniel said “they began to collect the sample of urine and blood of people who lives near the fracking sites, so they will detect the chemicals in those samples with the demonstrations found in air and water samples” (qtd in Konkel A232). These samples will help to detect the diseases and will be diagnosed easily. Another method researchers are using is purifying the wastewater which they can use in another treatment. “About seventy percent of flowback water gets reused, with some operator at a hundred-percent” said Kevin Sunday, deputy press secretary at DEP (qtd in Charles 2).      Supporters argue there is no proven case of fracking contaminating drinking water, and the process is safe (Inman 29). There have been over a million wells hydraulic fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one reported case of freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracking, claims the freelance writer Mason Inman, in the article “The Fracking Fallacy” (qtd in Inman 29). The work is done a thousand feet underground so there is no chance of exposure to water bodies (McGlynn 4). With the large amounts of negative publicity surrounding the fracking industry, there is much curiosity surrounding the future of the industry (Weinhold A274). According to others, the fracking process leads to high level of air pollution. The fact is that there is still a lot of air pollution being omitted is alarming, but that is still a large percentage compared to the year before (Weinhold A275). The fact is only fracking is not behind the air pollution; there are so many other reasons behind the pollution such as cars and burning fuel (Weinhold A275). There are other factors that play into air pollution, and there may be studies showing that pollutants are coming from the fracking, in reality there could be other industries nearby that are producing the pollution causing product and not being blamed (qtd in Weinhold A276).