Introduction
The topic of energy sourcing and its consumption has always been up for debate due to the varying opinions and perspectives related to it. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has been highly controversial because it is the energy gathering method associated with climate changes, water pollution, and earthquakes. During fracking, various chemicals, water, and sand are inserted underground at an extremely high pressure to reveal open rock layers for releasing the layers of gas and oil that are stored inside. However, without being strictly regulated, fracking has the potential to poison groundwaters and pollute surface waters, as well as threaten the well-being of wildlife and impair wild landscapes. There are several critical reasons for regulating fracking, such as its adverse impact on wildlife, the potential to cause earthquakes, toxicity, its damage to landscapes, air, water, and soil pollution, and contribution to global warming. Moreover, even though there are several risks associated with fracking, most of the public is kept “in the dark” as to what energy companies are pumping into the neighborhoods and backyards of citizens. Thus, fracking is both a dangerous and ambiguous practice, and if left unregulated, it can lead to significant adverse consequences, which is why it must be highly controlled by governmental rules and regulations.
Reasons for Establishing Fracking Regulation
Effect on Environment
The detrimental effect of fracking on wildlife and wildlife habitats is among the most important reasons for controlling and regulating the process. For example, there are significant terrestrial habitat effects that occur mainly due to the fragmentation of the landscape as a result of land clearing to install pipelines and develop well pads. To clear the land, the mature forests are often removed to create open corridors that edge the habitats of animals.
Besides land clearing and posing a threat to the natural ecosystems, fracking releases toxic fluids that can cause cancer, such as benzene and toluene. An issue with this is that the mentioned chemicals are not included in the federal regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act, with the government not requiring companies to disclose the exact chemicals contained in the fracking fluids they use (The Wilderness Society). As a result, there is a high risk of large volumes of toxic chemicals being injected into the ground on every drilling site, with only companies engaged in drilling having knowledge of what is contained in the fluids (Njuguna et al. 363). In addition, the process of fracking can go wrong due to some mistakes, and if the gas and oil wells are not strong enough, they make leak and contaminate groundwaters.
The lack of control over fracking is the reason for why it must be regulated, as there are high risks of the process harming the environment. The fact that companies involved in oil and gas sourcing do not have to disclose the composition of the fracking fluids they use is problematic because of the potential harms that could have been prevented with more control (Shipani). Thus, if the government continues allowing fracking companies to do whatever they think will be better for their profitability and cost-efficiency, the potential risk of significant damage being caused increases.
Effect on Earthquakes
Besides increasing the rates of pollution due to harmful chemicals, fracking has been linked to the occurrence of earthquakes because of the seismic effects of disposal wells. While during fracking, minor earthquakes, which are usually of magnitude lower than 1, are caused intentionally for increasing permeability, large earthquakes can potentially occur. As suggested by Roberts et al., a link between shale gas and seismicity has been found, with incidents of earthquakes due to hydraulic fracturing recorded in the UK, US, Canada, and China (304). Moreover, Massey mentioned that disposal wells had been shown to be correlated with earthquake swarms in such states as Oklahoma and Texas, as well as other locations where seismic activity has very rarely been recorded (10). These findings suggest that the way in which fracking companies dispose of their waste can lead to unwanted earthquakes, especially in areas where they are quite uncommon. This calls for the increased regulation of fracking by the government, especially the measures linked to waste disposal.
Increased Toxicity
Due to the toxicity of fracking, the sights of oil and gas sourcing can make people unwell. As mentioned in the NRDC article, there is a toxic stew released on fracking sites, which contains harmful chemicals that lead to intense headaches, the onset of asthma, cardiac problems, as well as childhood leukemia, and congenital disabilities. The detrimental effects of fracking have been perpetuated by the fact that the oil and gas industry is exempted from the regulations that could limit air pollution associated with industrial activity (Ellman). The toxic fumes that get emitted into the air are harmful to humans and animals, which is a significant issue. Stricter regulation and control by the government are needed to ensure that gas and oil companies are required to report on the substances they use so that it is possible to prevent air pollution.
Recurring Dangers
The environmental dangers posed by fracking remain often overlooked even though traditional fracking has been used for longer time periods due to its effectiveness. It is essential to pay more attention to the efforts to make fracking safer and cleaner, and there has already been done some research on this matter. Notably, even though fracking usually employs freshwater, the researchers specializing in the topic have developed a new method involving friction-reducing additives allowing to use the of recycled water to brine pumped from underground (Kiger). Besides, the findings of the Environmental Defense Fund inspections showed that inspectors who use infrared cameras were more effective at spotting fracking site leaks, which can be fixed by plugging. Thus, increased monitoring of fracking is imperative because of the dangers that go hand-in-hand with the process, with new research on the matter necessary to update practices and make it safer and more sustainable.
Damage to the Landscape
Individuals concerned with the environmental impact of fracking have suggested that continuing the practice will lead to furthering the damage to the landscape. Environmentalists have been consistently speaking against fracking because of the harmful chemicals used for matrix acidizing, which further dissolves perishable formations of limestones that protect aquifers (Alverez “Local-State Conflict on Fracking”). Moreover, environmentalists have been pushing for lawmakers to include acidizing in the bill regulating fracking while making an exception for its form used for well cleaning (Alverez “Unlikely Battle Over Fracking”). Therefore, experts who are concerned with the adverse effects of fracking have been advocating for more governmental regulations concerning different methods of fracking. Heeding the concerns of the public is important because it will show a unity between the governmental efforts and the expectations of citizens regarding the preservation of environmental stability and safety.
Soil Pollution
Besides polluting water, fracking has been shown to lead to soil pollution and the subsequent reduction of its quality. A study carried out by scholars at Cornell University revealed that some chemicals contained in the fracking wastewaters could enable the release of harmful substances into the soil (qtd. in Pollution Solutions). As a result, the particles bind pollutants to metals, which means that they can lead to more damage to human and wildlife health if a spill occurs (Pollution Solutions). Therefore, fracking poses the threat of pollution to the majority of environmental components, which is why it must be controlled and regulated. The pollution of the soil is problematic because of the possible danger of the plants that animals eat or crops that humans grow becoming toxic and harming their health.
Methane Emissions
Finally, it is important to discuss the fact that the process of fracking leads to the emission of methane into the air, which leads to global warming. According to Leahy, extreme spikes in methane emissions have occurred at the same time when fracking for shale gas began becoming popular in the United States. The volumes of methane added to the atmosphere in the -past ten years also aligns with the studies showing that fracking operations leak, vent, or flare between 2% to 6% of the gas being produced (Leahy). The increase in emissions, therefore, can be linked to fossil fuel production, which is a problem for the environment. This issue matters because high numbers of methane in the atmosphere heat up the climate over eighty times more compared to the equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide. Regulations associated with fracking must be put in place because the release of methane has become the normal outcome of the US gas and oil industry. Because the atmosphere has been found to respond quickly to changes in methane emissions, reducing its contents in the atmosphere could be an immediate solution for slowing down global warming (Leahy). Since the sourcing is not expected to stop any time soon, it is necessary to instill some boundaries on it so that the release of methane does not occur uncontrollably and without any repercussions.
Conclusion
To conclude, fracking is a negative practice that remains unregulated in the United States despite the adverse effects that it has on humans, wildlife, and the quality of the environment overall. From increasing the rates of global warming to influencing the soil and water quality, fracking has been found to have multiple adverse effects as a process. The lack of regulation and exception of gas and oil companies from reporting on some of its practices means that unethical corporations can abuse the law loopholes and work to achieve maximum profitability, failing to address sustainability concerns. Therefore, there must be a strong call for governmental agencies to establish rigid standards to limit the pollution associated with fracking and the storage of its waste and holding companies accountable to the same levels as other types of hazardous waste. Consistent inspection and enforcement programs are necessary for making sure that individuals responsible for quality control determine whether there are any violations in gas and oil companies’ practices.
Works Cited
Alverez, Lizzette. “Unlikely Battle Over Fracking Intensifies in Florida.”The New York Times, 2016.
— “Local-State Conflict on Fracking Heats Up in Geologically Fragile Florida.” The New York Times, 2016, p. A9.
Kiger, J. Patrick, “Green Fracking? 5 Technologies for Cleaner Shale Energy,”National Geographic, 2014.
Leahy, Stephen. “Fracking Boom Tied to Methane Spike in Earth’s Atmosphere.”National Geographic, 2019.
Massey, Kyle. “Environmentalists Not Sorry to See Fracking Stop.” Arkansas Business, vol. 33, no. 26, 2016, p. 10.
Njuguna, James, et al. “The Fate of Waste Drilling Fluids from Oil & Gas Industry Activities in the Exploration and Production Operations.” Waste Management, vol. 139, 2022, pp. 362-380.
NRDC. “Reduce Fracking Health Hazards.”NRDC.
Pollution Solutions. “Fracking ‘Could Cause Greater Levels of Soil Pollution’.”Pollution Solutions, 2014.
Roberts, Jennifer J., et al. “Fracking Bad Language – Hydraulic Fracturing and Earthquake Risks.” Geoscience Communication (Online), vol. 4, no. 2, 2021, pp. 303-327.
Shipani, Vanessa. “The Facts on Fracking Chemical Disclosure.”FactCheck, 2017.
WThe Wilderness Society. “The Truth About Fracking and the Environment.”The Wilderness Society, 2022.