Commonly compared to a blind high stakes gamble, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has been a hair rising issue growing larger since the release of the documentary Gasland in 2010. According to “Burning Love” by Elizabeth Kolbert, the issue with fracking lies with the major environmental risks that accompanies the process. It’s a gamble for an extremely lucrative opportunity, to drill natural gas right here on home soil, creating hundreds of jobs in possible areas where they are most needed, while risking the future of the soil and water in these areas. But as usual, where there is money to be made, people will act first and deal with repercussions later. The major argument is whether these repercussions are a definite outcome or if environmentalists are simply causing an unnecessary uproar. Jack Markell, a commission member opposing the move states, “Once hydrofracturing begins in the basin, the proverbial ‘faucet’ cannot be turned off, with any damage to our freshwater supplies likely requiring generations of effort to clean up.” The damage to fresh water has been one of the major causes for red flags on this issue. As fracking goes, in order to extract the Marcellus Shale, or natural gas, companies must pump a mixture of water, sand, salt, citric acid, benzene or lead, which are extremely hazardous if not properly contained during and after the process. Pumping dangerous carcinogens miles deep into the earth seems Ludacris to not think it will cause harm somewhere. Despite this, oil companies are able to dodge environmental protests by working around regulations that don’t even exist yet. The companies are legally able to hold privacy and keep silent which chemicals they use in the processes. State legislatures are quickly working to get this gas rush regulated, preventing the dumping and disposal of these toxins, but this takes time, during which oil companies happily collect millions in profits.
The companies themselves make a strong argument to back their position. Kolbert states that “Industry officials argue that the depth of the formations makes it impossible for fracking to pollute drinking-water supplies.” Still, despite the depth of the wells, the chemicals used still come back to the surface. Also known as “flowback” water, Kolbert states that “Huge quantities of water are used in fracking, and as much as forty per cent of it can come back up out of the gas wells, bringing with it corrosive salts, volatile organic compounds, and radioactive elements, such as radium.” This poses a serious risk to the water sources in surrounding areas, often leading to drinking water. 
According to the article, Kolbert states that “Anxiety about New York City’s drinking-water supply has prompted the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation to recommend, in a set of draft rules, that the practice be prohibited in the city’s upstate watershed.” If New York City is enough of a concern to prohibit fracking, why are smaller farm communities such as Pavillion, Wyoming, where traces of fracking chemicals have been reported in tap water, under looked and left to suffer the blowbacks of greedy oil companies?
An interesting article from mediamatters.org features Fox News Business host John Stossel as he speaks out on these proposed “myths” of contaminated drinking water, and defends the fracking process. Read “Ignoring Reality, Stossel Dismisses Fracking Health Hazards” to discover Stossel’s reports, as well as a video clip on the issue. Basically, he claims that the exploding tap water featured in the documentary Gasland is due to natural methane found in the area, having nothing to do with a result of fracking, as he states “Although this documentary Gasland makes it seem like that came from natural gas drilling, environmentalists investigated that, and it turns out there is natural methane in the ground.” Stossel repeats his claims in another report as he states, “Some people have gas in the ground that gets in their well water and they can, you know, it’s a big country. Weird stuff happens.” Stossel’s right, it’s a big country. But it’s our obligations to protect this country, and prevent sending half of it to waste as a result of our greed. Are these reports of contaminated water simply “weird stuff” or are they a result of the hazardous process of fracking? What do you think?
This is a fascinating post, Sean. I appreciate the depth of research that you did to help us understand both sides. I hadn’t heard that critique of Gasland, and I think it’s an important one.
I’m looking forward to seeing where this blog will go for you. Certainly there are local issues that you could explore, as well as economic ones. What is the benefit to poor communities where fracking is popular? Is that work the risk? Are the people in these communities fairly compensated? It would also be interesting to know what the working conditions are like in these areas. I know there are people who travel and set up camp, so to speak, so that they can work in the industry.
Ultimately, I’d love to hear you chime in too! I’m eager to know how all of this research is helping you develop an opinion.
First of all, good work on incorporating in relevant and current information to make sure your reader in well-informed. There was an appropriate blend of fact and discussion so that it didn’t read like a research paper but also wasn’t full of unfounded claims. I would suggest attempting to incorporate a few more questions for your readers to consider. I felt like the final paragraph (where most of your questions came from) was related to your overall topic but was oddly specific to have it be the continued topic of conversation. Posing questions based more on the general process/problems of fracking might be better, and you could save the more particular discussion of the legitimacy of the claims from Gasland for another, more specified post. Nonetheless, the questions you posed were thought-provoking. With all the compounds added to the fracking liquid, it is hard to believe contaminants in the water could be caused by anything but fracking. There is so little that’s known about the actual compounds that are injected into the shale to extract the gas. Companies are not required to disclose that information. However, that makes it very difficult to have enough evidence to accurately lay the blame on fracking companies for pollution to the local waters. Perhaps you may want to look into that aspect for a future post. Well done!
This is a really nice article. You have well-rounded sources from both sides of the issue, you clearly provide alot of information, but not too much, you leave it open for consideration and you express your opinion while equally representing both sides of the argument. Fracking is also just a good topic in general: it’s really relevant, and fits in to the larger picture of the oil crisis. I personally think it’s a ridiculous endeavor, because it quite probably does a lot of enviornmental for nothing but instant gratification. Oil is going to run out. Find a way to replace it instead of polluting our most vital resource, drinking water, in the desperate search for it! I think, if anything, you could expand this article by hinting at another energy prospect or solution, to get a broader picture. Great job!