The Cost of Fracking
BY ALANIS MELENDEZ-Staff Writer
In today’s world, oil is being used up at an exponential rate. Knowing they are reaching a point of no return, public officials are scrambling to find a solution for depleting oil levels. In this race to find a better solution, the topic of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, has become a continually circulated political discussion. Through fracking, oil can be found even in the most hard to reach places of the Earth. However, is this method of seeking independence from foreign resources worth harming the environment and ourselves?
Fracking is the process of drilling into the earth using a mix of water, sand, explosives and chemicals, otherwise known as fracking fluids. The drilling penetrates subterranean rocks to extract oil or gas. Hydraulic fracturing helps countries, like the United States, to obtain domestic oil and gas.
However, the danger of pushing this method without proper notice affects not only the environment, but nearby communities. When wells are not properly built, oil leaks occur and contaminate groundwater, which then flows back into nearby streams, and pollutes our water supply.
But, the fracking industry is not justified when renewable energy is not only eco-friendly, but a long lasting alternative. The focus on fracking may stunt the development of renewable energy. Rather than focusing on eco-friendly alternatives, public officials are futilely improving on a dying oil industry. According to Worldometer, we have approximately, “1,650,585,140,000 barrels” which is equivalent to “47 years of oil left.” Thus, if one would join the oil industry’s workforce at the age of 18, they would be unemployed at the age of 65.
The federal government currently does not require companies to disclose fracking fluid ingredients, unless their product contains diesel. Nevertheless, the majority of companies incorporate toxic chemicals such as lead, chlorine, and mercury. Not to mention, these chemicals seep into groundwater and contaminate our water supply, poisoning communities.
Furthermore, hydraulic fracturing industrializes wildlife environments. Drilling structures are invading habitats, specifically in California. Along with habitat invasions, fracking also endangers animals, such as California’s San Joaquin kit foxes and blunt-nosed leopard lizards.
Public officials have turned a blind eye to this environmental injustice, as they prioritize the few benefits of hydrofracking. Such as, taxes will be cheaper on oil and gas due to petroleum’s easy access. Also, working class citizens will be able to benefit and thrive off of the fracking industry. Still, won’t renewable energy bring about the same benefits?
For fracking to actually work in an environmentally friendly way, it requires an incredible number of regulations and improvements. For starters, companies should be required to disclose ingredients of fracking fluid in their product. Many companies release lead into our water supply and receive little to no repercussions. Additionally, there should be more structural improvements to the fracking machines to prevent leakage and contamination. As our population increases, more drilling would be ineffective and a band aid solution. Regulations may improve hydrofracking, but what happens in 47 years when the oil reservations are dried up?
It is essential to call your local representative to make your voice heard. Your representative may suggest a mandatory reviewing process, as this was effective in New York, and lead to a statewide fracking ban. If you are unable to obtain a state ban, suggest a ban near schools or wildlife habitats; this would help limit contamination of wildlife and adolescents.
Hydrofracking poses a threat to Earth’s environment and water supply. At what cost does domestic oil independence trump basic human need? I would hope the answer is never.
