Arona 1

Kyra Nicole Arona

Mr. Rogers
Government, Period 3
11 October 2016
Fracking Dangers Outweigh Benefits
Coal is a major fossil fuel for electric power plants, but citizens of America are aware of
its negative impacts on the environment. Oil and natural gas are becoming more accessible with
the rise of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking for short. Fracking is a process that allows natural gas
wells to be more efficient and economical, and it creates less pollution- or so the public thinks.
Just as any other fuel and fuel extraction method, fracking has its dangers. Oil and natural gas are
supposedly cleaner, but the extraction process actually emits gases stronger than carbon dioxide.
The chemicals used in fracking may seep into peoples drinking water; nobody knows what
health risks the chemicals pose. The process itself is anything but economical; each well costs
millions of dollars to drill, and tens of thousands of wells have been drilled since 2006. Fracking
should be more closely regulated because it contributes to pollution, the pollutants are linked
with health problems like asthma, and the process is very costly.
Oil and natural gas alike cause massive amounts of pollution to the air, ground, and
water. While burning coal emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide, natural gas emits methane,
which is 34 times as effective as carbon dioxide. Of the methane produced in natural gas
extraction, 3.6% to 7.9% escapes to the atmosphere in the lifetime of a well (Howarth, et
al. Methane). Because methane is so effective, a seemingly small percent of methane that
escapes will have a large impact on the environment. [T]ransmission and storage account for the
largest portion of the total methane emissions at 37% followed by extraction at 27%, distribution

Arona 2
at 24%, and processing contributing the least at 12% (Spath and Mann 11). Natural gas may be
considered cleaner because it emits little while it burns, but transmission, storage, and extraction
emit much more methane than burning. Taking these into consideration, natural gas is not as
clean as commonly believed. This pollution is not only harmful to the environment; it is also
associated with health problems.
As pollutants in the air enter human body systems, these pollutants can damage the lungs
and heart, among other vital organs. The fracking process involves many chemicals that have not
been well-researched; these chemicals are released into the air we breathe, the water we drink,
and the ground that our plants grow in. According to the Air Resources Board, pollutants can
cause breathing difficulties, lung tissue damage, increased respiratory disease, cancer,
premature death, chest pain in heart patients, headaches, reduced mental alertness, [and]
aggravate[d] asthma (Weller). Releasing chemicals, especially those with unknown side effects,
will only increase and aggravate health problems. 632 [identified] chemicals [were] used in
natural gas operations. Of these, 160 were carcinogens and mutagens (Avery 92). So many
chemicals are being used, and such a large fraction of them are harmful to humans. It is not right
to put the environment and human health at risk for the sake of an efficient process; especially
one that costs millions of dollars.
Fracking is not only harmful to the environment and our health; it is also uneconomical.
While it has revolutionized the fossil fuel industry and made electricity prices cheaper, it is in
fact a more costly process. A typical horizontal drilled well costs roughly $3 [to] 5 million
to complete (Kargbo, et al.). A typical well is extremely expensive to make. Combined with the
amount of pollution fracking causes, the cost of drilling a well can never justify the benefits of

Arona 3
using natural gas over coal. Over the period from 2006 to 2010, the average number of wells
drilled per year was 43,237, with an average cost of $2.38 million per well (Fitzgerald 1352).
With nearly fifty thousand wells costing millions of dollars each, the total cost goes well into the
tens of billions. This process of hydraulic fracturing is no more economical than it is safe for the
environment or public health, yet many continue to advocate for its use.
There are people who insist that hydraulic fracturing is too valuable of a process to stop.
They say that it will give the United States time to transition to alternative, renewable energy
sources and increase this countrys independence from other countries oil supplies. Those who
say fracking will bridge the country into renewable energy are mistaken; fracking will actually
take attention away from renewable energy research. [S]hale gas competes for investment with
green energy technologies, slowing their development and distracting politicians and the public
from developing a long-term sustainable energy policy (Howarth, et al. Should Fracking
Stop? 273). While fracking decreases the United States dependence on other countries oil, it
leads to extensive drilling on the countrys land, including residential areas. Act 13 included
language that preempted local zoning regulations to allow drilling of gas wells in areas zoned as
residential (Bowling). Even though hydraulic fracturing may help the United States sustain
itself without other countries fossil fuels, it will distract scientists from researching alternative
energy sources and allow for natural gas wells to ruin our own land.
Hydraulic fracturing should be more closely regulated because the extraction process is
harmful to the environment, the chemicals used in the process can be harmful to public health,
and each well alone costs millions of dollars. If fracking continues as normal, it will continue to
release chemicals into the air, ground, and water. The chemicals will inevitably end up in human

Arona 4
systems and lead to serious health problems. The benefits of fracturing cannot make up for the
risks to the environment, human health, or the economy. Senators, join me in the cause to tighten
regulations on hydraulic fracturing, lest these important aspects of our lives greatly suffer.

Arona 5
Works Cited
Avery, Samuel. The Pipeline and the Paradigm. Ruka Press, 2013.
Bowling, Terra, J.D. PA Court Rules against State Fracking Law. The SandBar, vol. 11, no. 4,
2012, http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/SandBar/pdfs/SandBar11.4.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Fitzgerald, Timothy. "Frackonomics: Some Economics of Hydraulic Fracturing." Case Western
Reserve Law Review, vol. 63, no. 4, 2013,
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1231&context=caselrev. Accessed 10 Oct. 2016.
Howarth, Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder. Should fracking stop? Nature,
vol. 477, 2011, pp, 271-75,
http://www.esm.ucsb.edu/academics/documents/HowarthIngraffeaandEngelder2011.pdf.
Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. Methane and the greenhouse-gas
footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change, vol. 106, no. 679,
2011, pp. 679-90, http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al
%20%202011.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept. 2016.
Kargbo, David M., Ron G. Wilhelm, David J. Campbell, and Souhail Al-Abed. "Natural Gas
Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Solutions." Environmental
Science & Technology, vol. 44, no.15, 2010,
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es903811p. Accessed 18 Sept. 2016.

Arona 6
Spath, Pamela L., and Margaret K. Mann. Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combinedcycle Power Generation System. NREL Life Cycle Assessment, 2000, pp. 1-32,
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27715.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept. 2016.
Weller, Barbara. "ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control." Air Pollution
Sources, Effects, Prevention and Control. Air Resources Board, 02 Dec. 2009,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm. Accessed 9 Sept. 2016.