Category: Hydraulic Fracturing

Invented in the 1940s and now used in over 90 percent of U.S. drilling operations, hydraulic fracturing is a method of extraction of natural gas and oil that involves injecting fluid in high pressures in order to crack the geological formation such as rocks that contain the hydrocarbon. The fluid composition consists of 90 to 98 percent water, a proppant in order to keep fractures open, and a smaller percentage of chemical additives.

Hydraulic fracturing technology has had an impact on US energy and chemical production. The supply of natural gas has increased and the natural gas prices have reduced, resulting in the replacement of coal in most of US electricity generation. Due to this increased supply of natural gas and crude oil as well as their reduced cost, the chemical production of the United States has also been impacted. Through the chemical manufacturing supply chain, the propagation of natural gas can provide opportunities for innovation that result in an improved collection of products and improved lifecycle impacts. There are also several potential benefits, risk and concerns, and concerns from the public.

The benefits of hydraulic fracturing technology include recovering natural gas and crude oil in “unprecedented amounts” from shale deposits, leading to a lower price of natural gas and making it a more viable solution than coal. In addition, coal is one of the most harmful fuels in the world, and natural gas produces three times fewer carbon emissions than coal. It can even reduce water use, in comparison to other fossil fuels. Also, burning natural gas emits about half the carbon dioxide that burning coal emits, does not release mercury and reduces SOx and NOx emissions.

Some of the risks and concerns as well concerns from the public include the following: exposure to toxic chemicals during drilling that can be harmful humans, groundwater contamination due to drilling, pollutants being released by drilling, earthquakes which are caused by the injection of fracking wastewater underground, and lastly air pollution. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is 25 times more powerful in trapping heat in the atmosphere than is carbon dioxide. It is estimated that four percent of the methane produced by wells escapes into the atmosphere. Other concerns threats to the human health.

According to Janet Currie in “Hydraulic Fracturing and Infant Heath: New Evidence from Pennsylvania,” more than 1.1 million birth records were analyzed in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013. Babies born to mothers living at different distances from the active “fracking” sites were compared. Evidence for negative health effects of in utero exposure to fracking sites 1 to 3 kilometers of the mother’s home was found. There is a greater probability of low-birth-weight babies, declines in the average birth weight, and other poor birth outcomes.

The main controversies the public is struggling with include the application of fracking on horizontal wells. This allows more area underground to be accessed compared to vertical wells, and it requires more water and fracking chemicals that are pumped down to pay zones that are beneath aquifers. Most of the opposition revolves around the issue of contaminating water supplies with fracking fluids, but other problems include radioactive pollutants, earthquakes, and health problems as well as the methane leaks from the fracking process which basically offsets the advantages of having lower carbon emissions.

A commercial methanol plant uses gas-phase synthesis technology. A methanol plant that has natural gas feed converts natural gas into synthesis gas, and the synthesis gas reacts and produces methano!

Fracking has been used widely in the US, and it is believed to offer great potential for crucial new sources of gas and oil supply. Currently, “hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has been used extensively in the US and Canada since the 1950s and offers the potential for significant new sources of oil and gas supply” (Goodman et al., 2016, para. 1). Several adverse environmental effects related to the operations have aroused controversy and many debates whether it should be sanctioned or not. Thus, it is important to discuss the effects of fracking on the environment, human life, and animals.

Fracking is a mining technique used by large companies to extract natural deposits from underground. The process involves using several chemicals that tend to run into water sources and are finally released into the air. This is a serious threat to the areas neighboring the mining sites. One of the benefits of hydraulic fracturing is the ability to extract natural gas and oil from deposits for more than sixty years (Liew et al., 2020). Based on the technological trends, ultimate and expected innovations in fracking will reduce its environmental effects.

Fracking is conducted by digging deep underground, then using small explosions, and then mixing water, chemicals, and sand so that the rock formations that hold oil and natural gas are broken down. The sand displaces either the oil or gas, and this is pumped back to the wellhead at the surface and separated from the water (Liew et al., 2020). The technique is a mechanical process that makes use of fluid pressure in releasing large quantities of natural gas and petroleum from below the earth. The blasting of the fluid underneath the earth’s surface cracks down the sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, shale, and limestone.

Several gas companies use different types of chemicals, for instance, benzene, lead, citric acid, and salt. More than fifty-five chemicals used in fracking have been identified to cause cancer, and twenty of these intensify the risk of lymphoma and leukemia. Carcinogenic chemicals used in fracking include formaldehyde, naphthalene, and benzene. Several individuals residing around fracking drilling wells may have experienced exposure to the alleged chemicals. Fracking involves the extraction of oil and gas from a rock by breaking a mixture of chemicals, water, and sand into drilled wells.

Supporters of the technique claim that it is safe and there is no possible effect of drinking water since the wells are drilled deeper than the water table then they are lined with cement to combat leakages. Fracking is an important activity to the US since it decreases the state’s dependence on external energy suppliers (Goodman et al., 2016). The mixture of the water used together with chemicals and proppants is used in blasting rock or coal formation.

However, more than ninety percent of the fracking fluids may stay underground and end up harming the environment. Crystalline silica, in addition to proppants and sand used in fracking, seriously affects the environment. The harmful chemicals used in fracking are toxic to both animals and humans. Small amounts of toxic chemicals can pollute several gallons of water and affect several lives by leading to disastrous health conditions.

Chemicals used in fracking fluid play several roles that augment sand and water productivity. This includes reducing water viscosity to enhance faster pumping and stimulating high pressures, increasing natural fractures, thus reducing the growth of bacteria that may affect the metal lining (Fetter, 2017). The fluids used are majorly formed from proppants (ceramics and sand) and 98 to 99.5 % water mixed with 2 to 0.5%chemicals.

The chemical prevents the growth of bacteria and minimizes friction besides stopping scale deposits in pipes and corrode the well lining. Several companies tend to treat the chemicals they use as confidential, thus making it difficult to know the exact concentration and types of chemicals used. The chemical additives are hazardous to the environment and contaminate sources of drinking water.

Fracking fluids discharged in water sources are the possible causes of pollution in groundwater. Numerous routes of probable harmful water contamination comprise the deterioration of well casings, the instrument’s failure, and the movement of toxic chemicals to shallow aquifers from fractures (Mahmoud et al., 2019). The discharge from the sites is also associated with animal diseases. After fracking ends, part of the pumped fluids goes back to the ground surface as flow backs which contain toxic substances such as lead, arsenic, and mercury.

Tar Sands

Tar sands are basically a dirty fuel, unlike crude oil. From an environmental view, it is evident that spills and leakages from pipelines release diluted bitumen that seriously affects the surrounding environment (Finkel, 2018). People exposed to diluted bitumen may have serious adverse health conditions. To extract bitumen from tar sand and refine it into other products like gasoline is expensive. Tar sands have got adverse impacts on the immediate environment where they are used.

The difference in the percentage of carbon dioxide emission can be attributed to the rigorous process of extraction where more energy is used in the upgrading and refinery of the products of tar sands. On average, a gallon of gasoline that is made of tar sand will emit about 15% carbon dioxide into the air than one made of conventional oil (Finkel, 2018). The problem of carbon dioxide emission is continuous since it pollutes the environment as a result of extracting tar (Parson & Ray, 2018). The projection is so because the in-situ mining is used in the extraction of bitumen lying deeper underground. In-situ mining leads to more emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than surface mining.

The extraction of tar sands causes an imbalance of water supply; for every gallon of gasoline produced from tar sands, about six gallons of freshwater is lost. The amount of water used to extract gasoline from tar sands is about three times more than what is used, while gasoline is to be extracted from conventional crude oil (Finkel, 2018). In the case of surface mining, the water used ends up in ponds and, when consumed, can be harmful to the health of marine life and other organisms. When in-situ mining is used, however, the wastewater is maintained within the wells risking contaminating water that exists underground in case of leakages.

Possible Solutions

To end the environmental concerns caused by the use of tar sands and its products, a number of measures can be put in place. Investments should be escalated to come with projects that will ensure the use of oil is considerably reduced by half. The use of dirty oil resources can be managed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere (Parson & Ray, 2018). The leading oil and gas companies have the responsibility to ensure that the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is reduced considerably. The first approach to end or reduces the harmful emissions is by avoiding dirty oil resources like the tar sands and embrace the use of crude.

Conclusion

Fracking is considered the best idea for extracting oil and natural gas, although it is still being investigated to determine the necessary regulations. A permanent safe tracer is the best way to study the long-lasting effects, current impacts, and end arguments on whether the technique is safe or harmful. The leading oil and gas companies have the responsibility to ensure that the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is reduced considerably.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking for short, is one of the most prevalent topics in the fight to keep our environment and natural resources safe. For instance, fracking has been linked to cause water and air pollution in many areas where the process is used. The method has been applied since the late 1940’s, but ever since the EPA lifted their restrictions on fracking it has been applied even more frequently. Although fracking brings an economic benefit to the communities, it does not overcome some of the linked environmental hazards induced by the process.

Fracking is a harmful venture, as there is evidence which suggests it can pose problems to the freshwater systems, the air, and the land which surround the site. The activity emits numerous pollutants into the air, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and other pollutants which can cause cancer and have harmful effects on the respiratory, nervous, and immune systems (Srebotnjak, Rotkin-Ellman 2). As well as pollutants from the fracking process itself, emissions from trucks and heavy machinery can also contain chemicals, including hydrogen sulfide, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which increase the risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, and premature death (Srebotnjak, Rotkin-Ellman 4). As well as emitting harmful pollutants into the air, fracking can put a region’s freshwater system at risk, and regulations to protect the public from issues concerning public health, water quality, or competition with the agriculture for water use have been nonexistent in the state of Michigan (Schroeck, 117). In some instances where fracking has been viewed in the courts, it has been treated as an issue of land ownership rather than an issue of environmental negligence (Wiseman, 20). Unless action is taken to require companies to frack in a manner that will cause as little harm as possible, they will continue to take advantage of Californian residents. In a recent study in Texas, it was discovered that greater amounts of fracking wastewater wells were placed near communities with higher populations of people of color (Johnston, 553). In order to protect not only the ecosystems of California, but also the citizens who live here and the business, agricultural and otherwise, which keep our economy competitive, a strong, cohesive regulatory plan will be crucial to protect the Golden State from the fracking industry.

The two least known impacts from fracking come in the form of earthquakes and hazardous waste. As stated earlier, the process of hydraulic fracturing contaminates a large amount of fresh water . The by-product of the process, called sludge, is considered by many as hazardous waste. By definition a hazardous waste is a waste that has the potential to be be very harmful to the environment. Fracking pumps a mixture of water, proppant (sand), and chemicals at a supposed ratio of 90%,9%, and around 1% respectively. The problem comes from the sheer amount of volume that gets used (Ground Water Protection Council). Even though only 1% of the mixture is made up of chemicals, that means they use anywhere from 80 to 300 tons of 5 to 10 chemicals per well (Gas Land Part 2). When all those chemicals are combined with the added oil and methane during the process, a hazardous waste is is created. That being said, there has been major difficulty trying to see what exact chemicals are being used. Some labs have done testing and found that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are present in the mixture. The oil companies state that the chemicals are part of a “trade secret” which allows them to hide most of the chemicals from public knowledge.

Along with the possible hazardous wastes that come with the hydraulic fracturing, areas that allow fracking might be susceptible to earthquakes and other seismic activities. As of right now there are five known instances where hydraulic fracturing has been directly linked with earthquakes (Watson, 2016). This is a small number, especially compared to the number of complaints and lawsuits that have been filed claiming that water fracking has caused seismic activity in their area. Part of the reason why is because there is simply not enough knowledge on earthquakes (Nicholson, Barclay, Blanson & Fair, 2012). Larger connections have been made between seismic activity and the disposal of the wastewater produced from water fracking into well injections (Nicholson et al., 2012). As reported by the Arkansas Geological Survey reports that there exists a strong temporal and spatial connection between earthquakes occurring in Arkansas and well injection sites (Nicholson et al., 2016). However many of the cases filed against oil and gas company regarding increased seismic activity, due to both the actual process of hydraulic fracturing and/or its waste disposal, have been ruled in favor of the companies due to, again, the lack of knowledge on earthquakes as stated earlier (Nicholson et al., 2012). This is a problem because Section 519 of the Restatement (Second) of Tortes holds those who carry out “abnormally dangerous” activities responsible for injuries and/or damages to properties that arise as consequence, even if utmost precaution has been taken to prevent such (Watson, 2016). Section 519 uses six points of reference to use as guidelines to judge whether or not an activity is abnormally dangerous, one of which is the inability to substantially mitigate risk through proper exercise of care. Earthquakes can be caused in subsurface formation have been fractured and recent studies suggest that even careful practice of hydraulic fracturing and wastewater injections pose an inherent risk for earthquake damage (Waston, 2016).

Our main goal is to create a statewide proposal and legislation on where fracking can take place in California. This is needed because fracking takes place in 10 of the counties that make up California. With the push for fracking becoming more popular, the process will only expand and an all encompassing mandate is needed.The two minor objectives we want to complete through tests and labs would be discovering more information on hydraulic fracturing induced earthquakes and what exactly makes up fracking fluid. We need this information in order to make a more well rounded mandate.

To find the necessary information for the statewide regulations needed, experiments ran by Jennifer S. Harkness et al. and the Pacific Geoscience Centre will be mirrored. Through repeating the tests our hope is we will collect more information on hazardous wastes and earthquakes. The tests run to examine said hazardous waste will be taken from previous studies done by Duke University. We will take five different sets of data including 31 samples from two different fracking sites. A chemical analysis will be performed to check for chloride, bromide, multiple forms of iodine, ammonium nitrogen, and nitrate.

Hostile attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing popularly referred to as fracking, have been intense, almost unanimous, among environmentalists and green movements. Europe, for instance, has witnessed significant numbers of resistance. Bulgaria and France, despite their largest reserves of natural gas, have stopped all fracking activities while activists have blocked possible drilling areas in the UK and Poland. Conversely, the US has made tremendous progress in fracking, specifically in Pennsylvania. However, it is imperative to establish whether fracking facts support these hostilities, and on this note, the essay supports the use of fracking to extract shale gas.

Fracking involves drilling horizontal well to break apart rocks to release shale gas far below the ground. These rocks contain shale gas that can be extracted to provide energy. Earlier gas extraction practices could not effectively extract shale gas. Since 1990s, however, gas companies in the US have been able to use advanced fracking technologies to extract shale gas (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Engineers pump high-pressure water straight into “shale layers to create fractures that release the trapped shale gas” (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Chemicals are also used in fracking to dissolve minerals, drive sand into fractures and kill harmful bacteria.

As concerned bodies raise concerns about the safety of the environment, specifically the groundwater safety, the US government, for instance, has updated its current regulations on federal land and essentially included new ones to protect groundwater from potential negative impacts of fracking activities (New Fracking Rules Protect Groundwater on Federal Lands 1). That is, these regulations exactly strive to ensure that engineers construct wells properly by observing the quality of cement casing, installations and conducting mechanical integrity tests to ascertain possibilities of leaks.

These regulations insist on geological studies to detect possible underground fractures, naturally occurring fault lines or any other factors that could lead to leakage of chemicals into nearby aquifer or areas. Further, the new regulations require fracking operators to treat their wastes at sites in sealed steel tanks rather than in normal waste pits, which have been linked to leaks and increased pollution of aquifers (New Fracking Rules Protect Groundwater on Federal Lands 1).

The industry, however, is preoccupied by fighting these new regulations through the courts. The American Petroleum Institute, for instance, has moved to a court to stop the implementation of the new rules. In addition, the industry captains have insisted that the process will be expensive, tedious and perhaps curtail investments in fracking. The opposition of the new regulation as demonstrated by the industry investors shows fallacy in argument because the costs are not huge and not likely to exceed two percent of the cost of drilling a well (Dechert 1).

Opponents of fracking should review fracking practices at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has been able to control potential contamination of drinking water. The water quality has been the same before and after fracking, except in few cases (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Although small leaks of methane gas have been detected, “fixing the casing system can address these challenges” (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Moreover, leakages may result from weak fractures, but specific casing designed for such locations could solve the problem. Pennsylvania has also addressed the issue of disposing brine. It has allowed the use of public water treatment plants to dispose brine. Nearly 90 percent of brine is recycled and used for further fracking.

The case of Pennsylvania shows that potential damages from fracking can easily be controlled through stringent regulations and technologies. These practices have led to industry standards that protect the environment and drinking water. Still, the rise in technologies seems to promise green fracking (Kiger 1). New technologies can address the identified “consequences of fracking on the environment” (Kiger 1). Shale gas is clean, can address the current challenges associated with the use of coal to generate energy and reduce greenhouse gases considerably. Still, economic impacts of fracking on job creation, falling energy prices, dependence on internal cheaper energy and expansion of industries cannot be ignored (Schulte 1).

Extracting natural resources, including shale gas and fossil fuel has negative consequences on the environment. Pros and cons have been major areas of arguments and counterarguments, but empirical evidence should guide future fracking activities and discourses (Dechert 1).

Many opponents of this natural gas extraction technique have identified possible environmental impacts related to fracking. They argue that dangerous chemicals can seep into drinking water and cause pollution while methane gas may escape into the atmosphere. In addition, greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere also have detrimental impacts on global warming. There have also been reported cases of earthquakes attributed to fracking (Stuart 1).

Moreover, gas firms have failed to disclose some of the chemicals they use for fracking, which could be dangerous. It is believed that fracking chemical and flow-back fluids contain element endocrine disruptors. A lack of disclosure by shale gas extracting firms, however, makes the process difficult to evaluate potential adverse effects of these chemicals. Hence, the cumulative adverse impacts of these fluids remain unknown (Dechert 1).

The involvement of the police to stop activities of activists could raise further concerns in an industry known to conceal its chemical contents from the public. Fracking opponents have reported increased police presence in fracking hotspots such as Pennsylvania, Rockies and Texas (Fracking Opponents Feel Police Pressure In Some Drilling Hotspots 1).

In sum, ever since hydraulic fracturing was implemented in some parts of the world, there has been growing opposition of the shale gas extraction activities because of the perceived environmental impacts. Fracking, however, is a great method to extract shale gas. Nevertheless, it requires effective technologies and sound environmental policies to minimize potential damages to the environment. Critics should also base their concerns on empirical evidence to support their claims and avoid false assumptions.

On this note, the public, critics, industry players and policymakers among other stakeholders need better education on fracking. It is impossible to make sound policies regarding controversial issues without sound information. Transparency is essentially necessary to enhance disclosure, better reporting and to discourage false reporting and assumptions about fracking processes and outcomes.

Hostile attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing popularly referred to as fracking, have been intense, almost unanimous, among environmentalists and green movements. Europe, for instance, has witnessed significant numbers of resistance. Bulgaria and France, despite their largest reserves of natural gas, have stopped all fracking activities while activists have blocked possible drilling areas in the UK and Poland. Conversely, the US has made tremendous progress in fracking, specifically in Pennsylvania. However, it is imperative to establish whether fracking facts support these hostilities.

Fracking involves drilling horizontal well to break apart rocks to release shale gas far below the ground. These rocks contain shale gas that can be extracted to provide energy. Earlier gas extraction practices could not effectively extract shale gas. Since 1990s, however, gas companies in the US have been able to use advanced fracking technologies to extract shale gas (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Engineers pump high-pressure water straight into “shale layers to create fractures that release the trapped shale gas” (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Chemicals are also used in fracking to dissolve minerals, drive sand into fractures and kill harmful bacteria.

Extracting natural resources, including shale gas and fossil fuel has negative consequences on the environment. Pros and cons have been major areas of arguments and counterarguments, but empirical evidence should guide future fracking activities and discourses. Many opponents of this natural gas extraction technique have identified possible environmental impacts related to fracking. They argue that dangerous chemicals can seep into drinking water and cause pollution while methane gas may escape into the atmosphere. In addition, greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere also have detrimental impacts on global warming. There have also been reported cases of earthquakes attributed to fracking (Stuart 1). Moreover, gas firms have failed to disclose some of the chemicals they use for fracking, which could be dangerous.

Opponents of fracking should review fracking practices at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has been able to control potential contamination of drinking water. The water quality has been the same before and after fracking, except in few cases (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Although small leaks of methane gas have been detected, “fixing the casing system can address these challenges” (Brantley and Meyendorff 1). Moreover, leakages may result from weak fractures, but specific casing designed for such locations could solve the problem. Pennsylvania has also addressed the issue of disposing brine. It has allowed the use of public water treatment plants to dispose brine. Nearly 90 percent of brine is recycled and used for further fracking.

The case of Pennsylvania shows that potential damages from fracking can easily be controlled through stringent regulations and technologies. These practices have led to industry standards that protect the environment and drinking water. Still, the rise in technologies seems to promise green fracking (Kiger 1). New technologies can address the identified “consequences of fracking on the environment” (Kiger 1). Shale gas is clean, can address the current challenges associated with the use of coal to generate energy and reduce greenhouse gases considerably. Still, economic impacts of fracking on job creation, falling energy prices, dependence on internal cheaper energy and expansion of industries cannot be ignored (Schulte 1). In sum, fracking is a great method to extract shale gas. It however requires effective technologies and sound environmental policies to minimize potential damages to the environment. Critics should also base their concerns on empirical evidence to support their claims.

Oil and natural gas are crucial to the twenty-first-century. They are used for fuel, tires, household appliances, and even heart valves. Without oil and natural gas, the modern way of life would be almost entirely different. However, the cost of obtaining these products using a process called hydraulic fracturing can be fatal. Hydraulic fracturing is the method by which oil natural gas is extracted from shale rock deep in the earth’s crust. Water pollution, air pollution, and climate change are three of the biggest downfalls of this extraction procedure. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a dangerous operation which negatively affects human and environmental health.

Hydraulic fracturing begins with drilling 7,000 to 12,000 feet into the ground. During this step, toxic gases and respirable crystalline silica are released into the air. Crystalline silica is respirable, which means it can easily be inhaled and absorbed by the human body. A hazard warning released by OSHA in 2012 warns, “Crystalline silica, in the form of sand, can cause silicosis when inhaled by workers.” Silicosis is an incurable lung disease. Some of the symptoms of silicosis include fatigue, extreme shortness of breath, cough, respiratory failure, and, in some cases, death. Despite preventative measures such as masks and protective uniforms, workers at fracking sites are commonly exposed to respirable crystalline silica. Benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene are just a few of the deadly chemicals released into the air. A study related to the situation where workers are being exposed to crystalline silica, if they are at a drilling site it is impossible to avoid breathing in the chemicals.

The next step is to inject millions of gallons of a toxic water-sand-chemical mixture into the ground at a very high pressure in order to break up the shale rock. After that, the water is stored in unlined pits in the ground. Sometimes it escapes the pit, contaminating clean water in the area. In December 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency, “concluded for the first time that the fracking process can contaminate drinking water.” This creates a dangerous and potentially lifethreatening situation for both humans and wildlife in the area. It is not only affecting above-ground reservoirs, ponds, and lakes, but it also affects groundwater. A study in Colorado found that “77 fracking wastewater spills that impacted groundwater supplies, of which 90 percent were contaminated with unsafe levels of benzene, a chemical linked to cancer.” There are organizations who specialize in cleaning up contaminated sites all over the United States, but the compounds in fracking fluid differ from site to site and aren’t commonly analyzed in commercial labs. Scientific American revealed that as a result of this, “conducting a groundwater investigation related to fracking is extremely complicated.”. The inability to analyze these compounds makes it tough for doctors to treat patients who have drank the contaminated water. Despite the fact that hydraulic fracturing has been proven to be the cause of so many health problems, the method by which fracking water has not changed. If a solution is not found before it escalates, the consequences could be devastating for not only humans but also the environment.

In addition to harming human health, newer studies are finding that hydraulic fracturing also contributes to climate change. Many studies have found that “during the fracking process, small amounts of methane are released directly into the atmosphere.” To enumerate, air pollution from fracking affects more than just the nearby area. “Air pollution from hydraulic fracturing operations can likely travel hundreds of miles, even into states with little or no fracking,” one of the new studies released. This means that even if one area, a country, state, or community bans fracking, they could still be affected by fracking sites hundreds of miles away.

Natural gas is believed to be cleaner and safer than previous mass-produced resources. It lessens the world’s dependence on coal, which is thought to be worse for the environment. The Smithsonian stated, “Burning natural gas, for instance, produces nearly half as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy compared with coal.” Fracking does produce less Carbon Dioxide than coal, but other, more harmful chemicals are released in the process. Natural gas appears to be the better alternative, but it usually is just as equally damaging as coal. The Guardian says, “shale gas and oil extraction were found to be easily the dominant source giving leak rates of 0.18-2.8% even before the gas was distributed to users.” The leak rate of shale gas, which contains methane, is far more detrimental than the effects of coal production and usage combined.

Hydraulic fracturing, the method by which humans obtain oil and natural gas, is dangerous and destructive. Water and air pollution are two major results of fracking, which deteriorate human and environmental health. Despite the fact that fracking has been proven to be damaging to both the planet and its inhabitants, mankind will continue to do it because their dependence on natural gas is too great. As a result, nature will continue to deteriorate until an alternative which humans will utilize, is found.

Hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking has been a hot environmental topic in our society today. Fracking is the process of drilling into the layers of the Earth’s crust using a high pressurized mixture of water, sand, and chemicals. This process is used to release natural gas that is buried in underground shale rocks. In today’s society, the need for natural gas is becoming more necessary. Because of this, debate about if fracking is safe for the quality of groundwater and if the reward is worth the potential repercussions is a well-rehearsed discussion. David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times and author of “Shale Gas Revolution” believes fracking is a blessing that America should take advantage of. On the contrary, “Safety First, Fracking Second” written by the editors of Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States believes that fracking would be very beneficial, but precautions and safely standards must be put in place beforehand. Brooks uses dramatic language and pathos to persuade readers that fracking is something we need to utilize now, while only glimpsing into the possible consequences of fracking, thus decreasing his goodwill and ability to reach to broader audiences. Scientific American uses strong logos, enhancing their credibility, to convince readers not to rush into solutions we don’t know much about. In addition, Scientific American’s choice of topic arrangement and the decision to use more factual knowledge and list possible solutions to the troubles of fracking instead of influencing emotions of the audience making this a piece an argument a variety of audiences can get on aboard with. All in all, this strengthens Scientific American’s ethos and suggests that their rhetoric is overall more effective.

To emotionally persuade his readers to agree with his point of view, Brooks uses dramatic language and pathos to strengthen his argument. Instead of sticking to the facts, Brooks uses almost a story-telling style of writing. He proceeds to fracking a “blessing,” one that America should take advantage of (238). According to Brooks, because America is “clogged” with different interests and opinions, we “groan to absorb even the most wondrous gifts” (238). Surprisingly enough, all of this is just in the first paragraph of the Brook’s piece. In the first paragraph alone, Brooks uses strong ethos to almost make his readers feel bad for not getting on board with fracking. Brooks, obviously a right-winged columnist, is speaking to any readers that might not be on his side. Brooks continues to show his strong ethos by including opinions from other notable authors. Daniel Yergin writes about a man, in his book “The Quest”, to which Brooks calls a “business genius,” George P. Mitchell (238). George P. Mitchell, credited for introducing the process of fracking, apparently “fought through waves of skepticism and opposition to extract gas from shale” (Brooks, 238). Brooks wants to convince his audience that making fracking a popular ideal is a battle and a battle that should be won. Yergin even goes on to call the fracking revolution “game-changing” (Brooks, 239). Before even listing the benefits of fracking in his article, Brooks wants to convince his audience that despite the number of benefits for the American citizens, despite the number of possible consequences, America needs fracking and it should be used regardless. In addition, to conclude his article, Brooks added an anecdote about his meeting with John Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon. Because Exelon runs on nuclear plants, the company knows it will hurt if fracking became the new frontier. Despite this, John Rowe knows “how much shale gas could mean to America” and “it would be a crime if we squandered this blessing” (Brooks, 240). Brooks ends on this note to persuade his readers that if a man was willing to sacrifice so much for the economic gain of America, then we should too.

Brooks spends most of his essay trying to emotionally appeal to his audience, which leaves very little room for the facts about fracking, and even less room to explain both sides it: the benefits and the possible dangers. Brooks chose to spend most of his time illustrating the good fracking has done such as providing employment opportunities and only glimpses into the consequences. According to Brooks, the use of shale gas produced half a million jobs and counting in states such as Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and soon Ohio. Another benefit is that America can start to invest in their own energy instead of places aboard. The French company, Vallourec, is even building a $650 million plant in Ohio that makes steel tubes for the wells (Brooks, 239). Brooks’ strategy of listing the benefits of fracking first did have purpose. Hopped on the excitement of the possibility of America becoming a place where other countries would turn for natural energy, readers probably didn’t even notice the three-paragraph essay discussing how fracking could potentially contaminate drinking water. Even if readers did notice this paragraph, following it, Brooks quickly includes a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology discussing, in Brooks’ own words, how the “inherent risks can be managed if there is reasonable regulatory regime, and if the general public has a balanced and realistic sense of cost and benefits” (240). The act of concealing one side of the story significantly decreases Brooks’ creditability of a trustworthy author.

Furthermore, Brooks choses to criticize the people that may be on the other side of his argument. He blames the environmentalists for the fact that fracking hasn’t become nationally accepted by saying they “seem to regard fossil fuels as morally corrupt and imagine [that] we can switch to wind and solar overnight” (239). Brooks even goes on to say that “not-in-my-backyard activists are organizing to prevent exploration” and that the clash between them and the coal industry is “brutal” and “totalistic” (239). Brooks does an amazing job of defending his argument and trying to persuade his readers to agree with him, but by making assumptions about the activists’ intentions and bashing them and the environmentalists is also an another example of how Brook’s ethos is seriously lacking. Who would trust an author who would fortify the confidence in his argument by stomping on opposing views? This also limits Brooks’ ability to reach to a broader range of audiences, limiting his audience to only the people that share his same beliefs.

Meanwhile, Scientific American’s rhetoric is much more effective because while it is well-written, the argument stays fairly neutral appealing to people that have different kinds of opinions on fracking. The editors tend to stick solely to the facts, including studies and possible solutions to the dangers of fracking for the good of the readers. Scientific American gives their argument by saying “Drilling for natural gas has gotten ahead of the science needed to prove it safe” (241). This statement is straightforward and sets the tone for the rest of the essay. This argument also doesn’t criticize any other side of fracking, making Scientific American successful on being able to reach their audience, the general public. Early on, Scientific American explains that they are not against fracking, but urge the need for regulations to be set that can guarantee the safety of fracking for American citizens. Scientific American show they are willing to support fracking by informing the readers that fracking would be good news for global climate by agreeing with the fact: “burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning coal” (241). Scientific American show a degree of care for their readers and have their best interest at hand. They prove this by concluding their essay with saying how “natural gas could benefit everyone. With basic precautions, we can enjoy both cleaner energy and clean water” (242).

Before that ending quote, Scientific American wisely chooses to arrange their article in which the possible consequences come first and the benefits second. By doing this, the audience is well formed about the topic of fracking and the potential dangers while also left with hope for the future of fracking. By keeping their audience well-informed, Scientific American’s credibility is strong. The audience is also able to trust their authors more because Scientific American chooses to focus on the facts, instead of emotionally persuading them. Scientific American is trying to explain to their audience that “benefits come with risks, however, that state and federal governments have yet to grapple with” (241). Scientific American believes that states are “flying blind” and the government needs to step in to help (241). There shouldn’t be a rush into fracking, especially since there is so many unanswered questions. Unlike New York, who’s governor lifted the ban on fracking, some states are stepping up to the plate and regulating gas industries on their own, but sometimes its not enough to ensure the purity of our ground water. Scientific American includes Pennsylvania regulators as an example: “[They] propose to extend a well operator’s liability for water quality out to 2,500 feet from a well, even though horizontal bores from the central well can stretch as far as 5,000 feet” (242). Scientific American also shows the strength in their logos by including studies that illustrate research on the safety of fracking that must be a priority before shale gas becomes a common resource. A study from Duke University found methane gas in drinking-water wells within 3,280 feet of fracking sites were seventeen times higher than wells that were farther away (241).

Scientific American also increases their credibility and knowledge on the subject of fracking by listing possible solutions to the problems fracking can cause instead of just plainly listing the dangers. As stated by Scientific American, these solutions include the increasing inspection of casing in well bores, storing toxic fluid, a huge byproduct of fracking, in tanks instead of open pits where they could potentially leak into the soil. Gas companies should also put tracers in the fracking fluid to see if any fluid ends up where its not supposed to be. Lastly, gas companies should test aquifers and drinking water wells nearby before, during, and after fracking occurs (242). Scientific American knows the benefits fracking can bring to America’s economy, but their argument remains unbiased and solely wants to advise the public to be better informed and better equipped if they decide to start fracking in their state.

In conclusion, Scientific American chooses to supply factual knowledge and possible solutions to the dangers fracking can cause to persuade the audience that fracking is a thing that needs better research and technology before states start drilling. On the other hand, Brooks uses emotional appeals to convince his audience that fracking is a gift that we must utilize as soon as possible, but lacks in knowledge about the possible consequences, leaving his audience ill-informed. Scientific American’s rhetoric is more effective because their argument can communicate to a wider range of audiences and makes it a point that their audience is well-informed about the pros and cons of fracking, increasing the creditability of the editors of Scientific American.