1

Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, has become a hot button topic

for many in the environmental science community, as an overwhelming amount of research

concerning the effects of fracking have come out. Fracking is simply the process of pumping

large volumes of fluid at high pressure deep into the ground at depths below the tectonic plates.

From there these highly pressurized fluids are used to crack portions of the shale tectonic plates

which in turn exposes natural gas reservoirs that conventional method of oil rigging cannot reach

(McGlynn 1). Natural gas was initially discovered in the traditional process of oil rigging but

was not viewed as a resource but as a byproduct of the conventional oil rigging operation.

Fracking is a very complicated and intricate process, so it is important to note that every part of

the fracking process is not bad. The main technique used in the fracking that has caused so many

issues is the process of waste water injection. Waste water injection is the disposal process used

to get rid of large volumes of excess fracking fluids used in the process of fracturing tectonic

plates. These fluids are disposed of by being harvested and then pumped and into a waste water

well where they are deemed safe to decompose and return to the environment (Whats the

Difference). Many in the environmental science community question the safety of fracking as

most of the research being conducted cites fracking operations as the cause of the newly

developed earthquake hotspots. However, this concern stems far beyond the environmental

science community as several major media outlets have picked up on the issue and have begun to

incorporate it into their publishing.

Fracking is a unique process and to better it, it is important to understand the politics and

history behind it. Fracking initially took off in the mid 2000s when the price of oil coming from

the Middle East became heavily influenced by relational tensions between the U.S. and various
 2

countries in the Middle East. Most of the relational tensions between the U.S. and the Middle

East resulted from various acts of terror, such as 9/11, or from varying levels of threats made

from one side to another. Rising oil prices paired with the fact that the fracking would allow the

U.S. to become more energy independent made fracking that much more attractive, which in turn

played a major part in the U.S.s decision to implement it on a large scale (Weeks). At the time

that fracking was introduced into the U.S. energy discussion, other renewable energy sources

such as solar and wind energy had just begun their slow and small scale implementation process

into the U.S.s energy scene. What made fracking more attractive than many renewable energy

resources, even though it was still in the conceptual phase, is the fact that unlike renewable

energy resources, fracking built off the energy infrastructure that was already in use across the

U.S. This factor alone made the initial cost of fracking dramatically cheaper than the cost of

every other renewable energy resource as it did not require an entirely new energy infrastructure

to be built to support it. The unattractiveness of nuclear energy being perpetuated by several

major media outlets was also a key component that lead to the widespread initial acceptance of

fracking in the U.S. Many U.S. citizens were increasingly concerned about the potential impacts

associated with nuclear energy as a result of heightened public awareness of the dangers

associated with nuclear capabilities, thanks North Korea and Chernobyl. Thus, the U.S. public

decided as a whole to accept the evil that they did not know, fracking, rather than the one that

they did, nuclear power. As a result of the attractive benefits associated with fracking paired with

the increasingly dim socio-economic relationship between the U.S. and Middle Eastern

countries, fracking was introduced into the U.S. without much preliminary testing or research.

As a result of frackings hasty integration into the U.S., the time that should have been

spent researching the safety aspects of fracking operations was not done as thoroughly as it
 3

should have been. As a result, most of the precautionary steps that should have been taken to

prevent fracking from harming the environment have had been implemented as issues have

arisen. Two of the main issues associated with fracking that have arisen are water contamination

and earthquakes. Water contamination has become an issue associated with fracking as a result

of imperfections in the fluid recovery process that prohibits portions of the chemicals used to

expand the cracks in the tectonic plates to be recovered. Chemicals that are not recovered then

become part of the environment and act as any other amount of ground water would, eventually

resulting in its presence in water reservoirs. Studies show that, water wells closest to drilling

activities had higher rates of methane contamination (McGlynn 7). Water contamination is

not anything new in todays world, and things like oceanic oil spills are a perfect example of

that. But what is new and raises quite a bit of concern is the fact that fracking operations are

being cited for contaminating inland fresh water supplies. An extreme example of this can be

seen in the documentary Gasland where director Josh Fox traveled across the country to

various communities nearby fracking sites and tested the quality of residential drinking water to

see if there was any correlation between fracking operations and the quality of local tap water.

Shockingly, one of the reoccurring results of his tests showed that the water coming out of the

tap was actually flammable (McGlynn 6). Newly forming earthquake hotspots in areas is also a

major issue being linked to fracking. Under normal circumstances, earthquakes are not

something to be feared, not to discredit their ability to induce fear, yet are entirely explainable

and extremely predictable. In addition, under normal circumstances, earthquakes result as a

product of a naturally occurring fault line slip or rubbing of two separate tectonic plates. What is

abnormal about these newly forming hotspots is that the fact that they are occurring in areas that

either have never had fault lines entirely, or have fault lines but have not exhibited warning signs
 4

associated with movement (Ellsworth). The one factor that researchers have been able to

associate these newly forming hotspots with is that they are developing in areas that have been

heavily fracked. Per William L. Ellsworth in his article Injection Induced Earthquakes, States

experiencing elevated levels of seismic activity included Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico,

Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia (1).

Fracking is not only extremely dangerous now, but is extremely hazardous to life in the

future. Two scenarios that could result from continued fracking in the future are: the forming of

new tectonic faults and boundaries, which would result in more earthquakes, and the gradual

contamination of the worlds fresh water supply. The U.S. itself does not contain a very large

portion of the worlds water supply. Therefore, if the U.S.s entire fresh water supply became

contaminated, it would not be the end of the world. However, given the way the water cycle

works, in the event even a large portion of the U.S.s water supply became contaminated, the

impact would be felt around the world as the contamination spread. Additionally, if portions of

the fresh water supply continue to become contaminated as a result of fracking, it will result in a

national and eventually global health crisis as water is vital to human survival. Another scenario

that could occur if fracking is continued is the formation of new tectonic boundaries and faults.

Fracking earthquakes at the moment have all been relatively small and have not caused much

widespread damage. However, if fracking is continued, these earthquakes will become stronger

and stronger subsequently result in widespread damage.

Many however do not see fracking as a danger to humanitys current and future health

and well-being. Some argue that water contamination linked to fracking does not exist. This

belief is clearly seen in John Rogers article, EPA Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing, when

he points out that according to a publishing by the EPA in 2013, there has never been an instance
 5

where fracking has negatively impacted public health (Rogers 1). It is important to note that

despite this claim made by the EPA, the EPA has also published a significant amount of data that

links fracking to the contamination of several drinking water supplies (McGlynn 6).

Fracking is a very risky operation and there is still a lot about it that we do not know yet.

We have had to learn about the impacts associated with fracking as they have come up, and for

some they have had to experience them first hand. Despite the numerous economic benefits

associated with mass scale integration of fracking, the cons heavily outweigh the pros when one

considers the potential impacts that fracking will result in if continued. If fracking is continued,

the worlds supply of water will eventually become contaminated and earthquakes will most

likely intensify rendering certain geographical locations that were once safe unfit for life. In the

end, the decision comes down to this, does saying yes to fracking line up with your convictions

towards being a good steward of the earth that God has given you?

Works Cited

Ellsworth, William L. "Injection-Induced Earthquakes." Science. American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 12 July 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

McGlynn, Daniel. "Fracking Controversy." CQ Researcher 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

Plumer, Brad. "The Little-known Story of How "fracking" Entered Our Vocabulary." Vox. 28

Apr. 2016. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

 6

Rogers, John. "EPA Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing." FDCH Congressional Testimony:

Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.

Weeks, Jennifer. "U.S. Oil Dependence." CQ Researcher 22 June 2012: 549-72. Web. 21 Sept.

2016.

"What's the Difference between Wastewater Disposal and fracking?" What Is Fracking? 06

Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.