Examining How Fracking Harms the Environment and the People
Evaluating the Usage of Fracking.
Within recent years, concerns about climate change have been growing; fracking has grown within the last two decades but dates back to the 1940s. Fracking alludes to high-pressure injection of water fused with chemicals and sand injected into shale, which is supposed to release the gas and oil trapped within the rock. The oil harvested from the rock risks air and water quality; it has also been linked to causing earthquakes and forest fires. Fracking is subject to environmental criticism for exacerbating climate change, despite big oil corporations and lawmakers depicting it as an innocuous option for producing crude oil. Some economists have argued that hydraulic fracking fuels the economy and creates jobs. However, the question remains: how long does it take for big corporations to realize that the earth has finite resources not conceived for bolstering economic endeavors? Despite this scientific evidence that fracking harms the environment, lawmakers and politicians refuse to ban the practice, which will ultimately result in the long-term contamination of the earth.
Scientific Evidence Proves Fracking is Releasing Chemicals into the Earth.
Scientific evidence has continually proven that fracking produces radioactive waste and releases toxic chemicals into the environment. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, involves injecting slick water, which includes a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals pumped underground at high pressure to break the shale and create fractures, allowing natural gas to flow. The chemicals present in slick water include biocides (which are used to eradicate microorganisms), surfactants (chemical compounds used to enhance oil/gas productivity and reduce energy consumption), and scale inhibitors (a class of chemicals used to slow/prevent scaling). Once the pressure is dropped, the slickwater returns to the surface as salty and toxic wastewater. The wastewater contains barium and radioactive radium; when the radium decays, it releases radon, which generates high radioactivity. A Geological Survey by Mark Engle discovered traces of radium-226, a decaying product of uranium that can exceed 10,000 picocuries. Professor Mukul Sharma of Dartmouth College states, “wastewater travels through the fracture network and returns to the fracking drill hole, it becomes progressively enriched in salts.” The saline composition of the wastewater then becomes liable for extracting radium from the shale and bringing it to the surface. The radium brought to the earth’s surface has been responsible for worsening climate change and other environmental concerns, such as air quality.
Fracking is Contributing to Climate Change and Pollutes the Air and Water Supply.
Fracking has been shown to deteriorate environmental conditions and contribute to climate change. The term climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperature and weather patterns. While climate change can occur naturally due to factors such as volcanic eruptions, tectonic shifts, and fluctuations in solar radiation; human events have been the primary source of climate change. The connection between climate change and hydraulic fracking is that methane has been found to leak from production sites during fracking. In high fracking regions, high methane concentrations are measured on the ground and detectable in satellite data. While methane is not toxic when inhaled in small quantities, high methane levels can result in numerous concerns for humans, such as impaired vision, unconsciousness, and suffocation. Not only is methane harmful to humans, but it is also dangerous to the environment. Methane is responsible for over 25% of climate change due to its ability to trap more heat in the atmosphere per molecule than carbon dioxide, making it 80 times more perilous than CO2 for 20 years after its release. Considering that at least 25% percent of global warming is driven by methane, fracking should be held accountable for contributing to the emissions of methane warming the planet. It also has been discovered that fracked shale gas wells can have methane leakage rates ranging as high as 7.9 percent. Hydraulic fracking does not only magnify poor air quality by releasing methane emissions, but it also can release petroleum hydrocarbons (such as benzene and xylene). Petroleum hydrocarbons are a significant class of carbon and hydrogen chemicals commonly found in fuels such as diesel, motor oil, gasoline, etc.
Fracking has been proven to pollute our air and water supply through emissions and working conditions. Methane and petroleum hydrocarbons are commonly known to be released during fracking and harm natural resources. What has become lesser known is that the working conditions during fracking can pose serious risks, “(1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundments — temporary storage areas.” Fracking can pollute our air with potent chemicals and greenhouse gasses, but the chemicals used during fracking can also seep into drinking water. Oil drilling near public drinking water can result in congenital disabilities in infants, childhood asthma, the deterioration of cardiovascular health, and opioid deaths. Fracking-related chemicals like volatile organic compounds trickle into groundwater that feeds municipal water systems. Water contamination can also transpire if a well is installed incorrectly or if chemicals spill out from trucks or tanks. Hydraulic fracking has been impairing people’s health, inhibiting the earth since its inception. It has been contaminating the planet with hazardous chemicals directly tied to increasing the threat of climate change and global warming.
Environmental Conditions are Declining While Politicians Have Refused to Ban Fracking.
Environmental conditions have been declining due to fracking, which lawmakers have enabled. Economists have argued that fracking creates more jobs and produces millions of dollars annually. These arguments have been cited when lawmakers decide on economic and employment policy; a prominent example is when former President Donald Trump announced his support for hydraulic fracking. His reasoning for supporting fracking was to bolster jobs and economic opportunity. However, it must be acknowledged that pursuing economic ventures through fracking will not succor working Americans or those who inhibit poor areas closest to fracking sites. Fracking operations are performed primarily in poor and rural areas. This verdict was reached by inspecting the poverty rates of Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas. The operations are situated at these locations because they provide more space, cost less, and are less burdensome than fracking in more populated areas. As previously mentioned, hydraulic fracking contaminates water, air, and the earth due to methane and other chemical emissions such as petroleum hydrocarbons. Matthew Castelli writes the following in the Indiana Journal, “fracking produces three main categories of negative externalities: water, air, and land contamination. Water contamination can be caused by the migration of fracking fluids, methane, or sediment into aquifers; air contamination may result from fugitive vapors and onsite combustion; and land contamination can occur from spills of fracking fluids and toxic runoff. Each devalues neighboring properties and can potentially cause adverse health effects.”
Politicians have been excusing the practice of fracking, citing that it expands jobs that better workers’ lives. However, workers and those living close to fracking sites are at risk for serious illnesses due to the health risks fracking presents. It has been estimated that several thousand premature deaths occur; however, everybody living close to fracking wells has higher health risks, primarily due to air pollution. Earlier studies have confirmed that living near fracking sites can impair health and cause asthma, cardiovascular disease, and low birth weight. However, it has been recently discovered that fracking can lower life expectancy. It is currently unknown if the radioactive particles produced during fracking are the cause. It is also suspected that it could be the increased exposure to diesel engines from the trucks carrying fluid or the volatile organic compounds released during fracking. If fracking can severely affect those living close to the sites, what is its impact on workers? Within 12 years, an oil and gas worker died once every three months on average in Colorado. Lawmakers who cite that fracking is creating jobs are actively deceiving the public since the lives of working people and impoverished people living close to the sites are in danger of dying and succumbing to illness.
Reflecting on the Costs of Fracking on the Environment and the People
With hydraulic fracking on the rise, we must consider the harm it presents to the environment and living organisms. Scientific evidence proves that fracking produces radioactive waste and releases hazardous chemicals into the air, water, and atmosphere. The fracking process brings decayed radium to the surface, which can be attributed to worsening climate change. Methane can also leak from the production sites, and methane concentrations can now be measured from the ground. Fracking can contaminate the air with potent chemicals and greenhouse gasses, but the chemicals used during fracking can also make their way into drinking water. While fracking has been scientifically proven to contaminate the planet and harm people, lawmakers refuse to ban the practice. Fracking has yet to be banned due to lawmakers favoring its effect on the economy. However, there have been documented occurrences of workers dying on fracking sites; if lawmakers favored workers, lawmakers would prevent workers from being exposed to harmful chemicals. Better replacements for fracking include wind and solar power; renewable energy also decreases CO2 emissions and costs less. People can urge politicians and leaders to replace fossil fuels by making our voices heard, including petitioning, calling local governors, and donating money to organizations that protect the environment and wildlife from the harms of oil drilling. It must also be considered that the oil industry is very lucrative for the ruling elites. Wealthy oil companies and politicians gravely benefit financially from the oil industry; wars have been fought for the interest of Western companies seeking big oil’s monetary benefits.
Sources cited
At least 51 workers have died in Colorado’s oil and gas fields since 2003 — The Denver Post. (n.d.). The Denver Post. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://extras.denverpost.com/oil-gas-deaths/index.html
Castelli, M. (2015). Fracking and the Rural Poor: Negative Externalities, Failing Remedies, and Federal Legislation. Indiana Journal of Law of Social Equality. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse/vol3/iss2/6
Fracking in the face of global climate change. (n.d.). NASA/ADS. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AGUFM.U44A..03P/abstract#:~:text=Gas%20production%20through%20fracking%20also,now%20detectable%20in%20satellite%20data
Fracking. (n.d.). Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/fracking/
How slick water and black shale in fracking combine to produce radioactive waste. (2018). ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180918154831.htm
Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks. (2012). Government Accountability Office. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-732.pdf
J Brown, V. (2014). Radionuclides in Fracking Wastewater: Managing a Toxic Blend. Environmental Health Perspectives. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.122-a50#
Keller, A. (2023). Fracking | What it is and its effects on the environment. Consumer Notice, LLC. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.consumernotice.org/environmental/fracking/#:~:text=Fracking%20is%20controversial%20because%20of,in%20regions%20where%20it%27s%20done.
Michaud, M. (2022). Study Links Fracking, Drinking Water Pollution, and Infant Health. University of Rochester Medical Center. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-links-fracking-drinking-water-pollution-and-infant-heath#:~:text=The%20new%20study%20indicates%20that,a%20new%20well%20is%20established.
Oberhaus, D. (2022). Fracking’s Deadly toll. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2022/06/right-now-fracking-deadly-toll#:~:text=Although%20the%20researchers%20couldn%27t,thousand%20premature%20deaths%20every%20year.
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm
United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.). What’s the deal with methane? UNEP. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/video/whats-deal-methane#:~:text=It%20is%20responsible%20for%20more,years%20after%20it%20is%20released
