MS: Is fracking safe?

SD: Absolutely not. It never will be.

MS: Is using our water worth it for going after oil and gas?

SD: I am absolutely appalled that the oil and gas industry is using our most valuable resource—water—to mine for something far less valuable.

MS: Why are you passionate about preventing fracking?

SD: I think, number one, is to protect the health and safety and welfare of the environment and citizens from the adverse impacts—the very harmful impacts of the fracking process and the drilling … just everything the oil and gas extraction industry encompasses. But I think even more so, we are so much more smarter, yet extracting yet another fossil fuel. I firmly believe we are going down, backwards. We need to go forward, and have research and development that focuses solely on healthy energies that allows the U.S. to have healthy energy democracy not an extractive oligarchic sort of energy island. Seriously, an oil-garchy is what we call it. We are just going in the wrong direction to serious consequences.

MS: Why should we be concerned about fracking?

SD: Well I think in short why the citizens of America or the globe should be concerned about fracking is that it’s a largely unregulated industry that is not for the benefit of energy democracy in America or the health and welfare of the people, and it’s for the less than 1 percent, and it’s extremely damaging, it’s environmental catastrophe waiting to happen decades from now and human health catastrophe.

MS: What happened during the flood?

SD: The flood in September was a shocker, not just to Colorado, but the United States and the world that Colorado had its first tropical rainstorm. About 1,970, according to the state, active oil and gas well pads were negatively impacted by the flood as well. The amount of rain that fell was unprecedented. It was an epic flood of epic proportions. And it paved its way through the highest density of active producing well pads in Colorado and the United States. So, it was a shock to the industry and to the people. There were so many people that lost their homes, which is the saddest part of all. So, what we saw here were worst case scenarios, which the state and industry were not prepared for.

MS: Could you tell me what you did during/shortly after the flooding?

SD: I went up into the air five times. I flew over the flood plain from Boulder to nearly the Nebraska border five separate times. I took up CNN, NBC, NPR, New York Times, all kinds of people out into the field, on the ground and in the air. Took several thousand photographs of the well pads that were impacted negatively where you could see the condensate or crude oil tanks or produced water tanks flipped over, pipes broken. So basically what I did was taking maybe three or four dozen people out on the ground and up in the air to show the leading media across the nation what really happened.

MS: What would you say was the most common damage?

SD: I think the most common damage people saw on the surface, was the tanks listing or flipped over on their sides or floating down this new epic river. But one thing I tried to show case was the subsurface infrastructure. The industry and the state were only talking about the equipment that was on top of the ground. And I know being on the ground the floods were so strong they washed away three and four and five feet of top soil in many areas along the river—the South Platte and St. Vrain River. And so what I looked at was these subsurface infrastructure to include flow lines, gathering lines, all the plastic pipelines that carry the petrochemicals to and from the production sites to the gathering stations to the refineries. Just like the Titanic, the Titanic was not sunk from the tip on the iceberg. It was the subsurface infrastructure that caused the most amount of damage. So that was my talking point because the industry can say we sucked up this amount of crude oil, this amount of produced water on the surface that spilled but what they are not telling us is what they don’t know which lies beneath the surface. They don’t know how much of those chemicals are still leaking because they’ll have to inspect every inch of those flow lines and those gathering lines all across the flood plain.

MS: And what would you say are the main types of contamination that especially you’re most concerned about that was released?

SD: Well all of it. Obviously crude oil which is also considered condensate. It’s crude oil but it has a number of other fluids, toxic or endocrine disrupting chemicals that would be mixed in with it until it would be refined or before it was refined. Also, any of the fracking fluid constituents to include naturally occurring radioactive materials that come up from the well bore that are stored in the produced water vaults. So I think it’s everything. I don’t have one in particular. Anything that is not naturally on the surface that is a product of oil and gas that spills on the surface that contaminates the surface is a problem.

A lot of these chemicals people need to know are endocrine disrupting chemicals that are so damaging to our reproductive systems, short term, long term and forever. Any and all of these chemicals that were released is a problem. The oil and gas industry is saying, well there is only a small amount of these chemicals released. That is the problem. And again the industry is saying, “dilution is the solution to pollution.” Well they can’t have that as a best management practice. And that’s what they are relying on all the time … when you say, “dilution is the solution to pollution.” For example, basically these open evaporation pits on western slope like in Garfield County where hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic industrial liquid waste are being evaporated into the air from the industry’s backyard to your backyard. And the same thing applies when you have huge spills like this, well it spilled into the water so it was diluted. This is our water. These waters of the state. The people’s water. This should never happen. The industry should be held extremely accountable for their actions.

Davis clarified at another point in this interview that the main contaminants to be especially concerned about are Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene and Zylene, which are called BTEX chemicals. There is also Methyl Chloride (extremely dangerous), Cyclopentane and dozens of other chemicals released. A common batch of fracking fluid could hold 500 or more different ingredients that is currently not required to be disclosed to the general public or the government.

MS: What should we do in the future with fracking?

SD: Well outside of banning it completely, I think that in the interim while we can figure how to ban it there should be an enormous severance tax to research and development for the state in which it’s conducted. I also believe money should be set aside, millions and millions of dollars for environmental remediation and any associated health impacts.

They have a bond. Every operator has a surface bond and a surface agreement, a land use agreement, with the private land owner or state or federal mineral holder rights. But their bond is anywhere from two to 25 thousand dollars. And just simple remediation of a well pad—let’s say there was a thousand barrels of oil that spilled on the surface, just the remediation if that was in an agricultural area which 90 percent of all oil and gas wells are in Weld County, they are right in the center of an Agriculture area—the bond they put up, the two to 25 thousand dollars, doesn’t even begin to start the remediation. So, the fines and the bonds are so outdated that they don’t cover actual/factual costs. We need to envision something that is going to remediate the damage that the oil and gas industry imposes on our ways of life. And let us not forget that the federal exemptions, that the oil and gas industry currently lavishes in, strips our civil rights and protections. Now the citizens, free citizens of America cannot protect themselves from the adverse impacts of the fracking processes—to include the development, the drilling, the fracking, the production, the transportation.

Active wells are supposed to get inspected every year, and inactive every five years. That’s the rules and regulations right now. But the inactive are as problematic as the active … if not more so. I absolutely believe the abandoned wells should be inspected (if they are not) twice per year especially in the winter [they experience a lot of contraction and expansion].” Colorado has 13 field inspectors and about four that sit at a desk directing the field inspectors. These people are staffed through COGCC, which is state funded.

Colorado drilling pads eight days after the rain stopped, Sept. 24, 2013. Photo credit: Lee Buchsbaum
Colorado drilling pads eight days after the rain stopped, Sept. 24, 2013. Photo credit: Lee Buchsbaum (LMB Photography)
There has been a lot of activity, especially in local Colorado communities, fighting for a ban on fracking. Longmont voted for a ban in 2012 that was challenged by the oil and gas industry organization (COGA) and the state (COGCC). In the Nov. 5 election, Fort Collins, Boulder, Lafayette and Broomfield had moratorium/banning initiatives on their ballots.

“It’s amazing, every time there is a public meeting, more people show up than the last time,” said Russell Mendell, state organizer for Frack Free Colorado in The Daily Camera. “And it just seems like people are starting to be educated on the issue, and more and more people are showing they are passionate about protecting the community from the impacts of fracking. It represents the citizen movement that has been really sort of spreading across Colorado and across the country as well, as people learn about the health impacts of fracking, the impacts on home values, the impacts to so many different elements of people’s lives including the economy, and the tourism economy and to local business.”

MS: Could you give me an update on the local initiatives of the last election and the US House legislation vote?

SD: Fort Collins has a five year moratorium [passed with 55 percent]. Longmont we know they are obviously being sued. They had a 60 to 40 [passed] initiative which is a ban on fracking. Boulder has a five year moratorium in which more than 70 percent voted in favor of it. Lafayette has [by 58 percent] a Community Bill of Rights ban which is extremely unique in that the Community Bill of Rights ban is just not for fracking but trumps corporate rights. It says, “Community rights now preempt corporate rights.” That one is extremely symbolic for Colorado. And Broomfield just recently passed their moratorium with [17] votes … Loveland was going to be number five that took a really weird turn. Loveland was set to have a two year moratorium put on the ballot and this city council found a loophole in their local policy that stripped the voters’ rights to be able to put the two year moratorium on the ballot.

Protesters, both young and old, gather in front of the old Boulder County Courthouse. Photo credit: Frack Free Colorado
Protesters, both young and old, gather in front of the old Boulder County Courthouse. Photo credit: Frack Free Colorado
MS: How would you interpret the results in what happened with Boulder, Broomfield, Fort Collins, Lafayette, Longmont and regards to the U.S. House/FRAC Act related voting?

SD: I interpret the results as the voice or courts of public opinion. Colorado people have spoken. They’re concerned citizens for the health and welfare of their families and the environment. What you’re seeing is this is a civil rights movement right now. It’s no longer truly just about hydraulic fracturing. It’s taking on this new life of civil rights movement because right now Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), is now suing Longmont, they’re suing Fort Collins and they’re suing Lafayette, and they’ll probably sue Broomfield as well. But suing because we enacted and demonstrated our democratic vote tells me that there is something substantially wrong with our political environment today. If COGA, the oil and gas industry’s mouthpiece, is suing to take away our democracy and our votes, that’s absolutely unconstitutional and a violation of our civil rights. So, I think what you’re seeing is the general public becoming more aware not just of the hazards of hydraulic fracturing but how the industry, the oil and gas industry, is marginalizing and suing to take away our rights.

Shane Davis with the plane he used to survey the damage from the flood.
Shane Davis with the plane he used to survey the damage from the flood.
MS: Still on the horizon is the FRAC Act (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act), which has been reintroduced each Congress since 2008 by Diana DeGette (D-CO). Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) has co-sponsored with DeGette and more recently Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO). In 2013, for the first time, the bill was introduced as a bipartisan measure with Chris Gibson (R-NY). Nevertheless, the U.S. House knocked out the FRAC Act once again during this Congressional session.

The FRAC Act establishes common sense safeguards to protect groundwater, requires disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking fluids and removes the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the provision added to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The lobbying group Energy in Depth said the FRAC Act is an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers,” and claims enacting new regulation could result in half of the U.S. oil wells and one third of the gas wells being closed. Congressman Hinchey said, “We need to know exactly what chemicals are being injected into the ground and we must ensure that the industry is not exempt from basic environmental safeguards like the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Can you share your thoughts on the FRAC Act?

SD: It’s gaining a lot more nationwide illumination. And the activists around the nation are trying to rally around the FRAC Act, the Breather Act. Those are to essentially overturn the federal exemptions in the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. The industry is exempt as you know from key provisions in those federal laws. And so Jared and Diana DeGette’s FRAC Act would actually overturn those exemptions for water. Right now the water and chemicals the industry are putting down the bore hole are not considered hazardous materials—that’s their exemption. I don’t know where it stands now but I know they are fighting tooth and nail. Diane DeGette is a champion for us. But she really has to continue through. I know it’s a good act, that needs to happen. Like all the 2005 Energy Policy Act exemptions for the industry, all of them need to be overturned. And so the FRAC Act and Breather Act are parts and pieces of the whole that we need to pursue.

http://www.dangersoffracking.com

Q: What is fracking? 

A: Fracking is the recovery of hydrocarbons in unconventional formations using hydraulic fracturing techniques. Most often, hydrocarbons (think oil) are found in permeable rock reservoirs. These formations are considered conventional. Unconventional formations (like shale) are composed of finer-grain rocks and are much less porous. Injecting a combination of water, sand and chemicals under pressure down wells and into targeted formations fractures the rock to effectively create the necessary porosity to release the oil or gas.

Q: Is fracking a real change in how we access gas and oil, or is it just a fad?

A: Fracking is very real and is, indeed, transforming the oil and gas industry. The development of fracking for natural gas in the United States really started to take off in 2005 and has been the product of market demand and price forces and technological innovation.

Henry Hub natural gas price, the U.S. reference price for natural gas named after a natural gas distribution hub in Louisiana, hit an all-time high in October 2005 at more than $13/MMBtu (millions of British thermal units). This price spike was a huge signal to the market that there were big returns to be made in natural gas.

Now, fracking itself is not a completely new phenomenon — in fact, the ability to drill horizontally and with greater precision had improved the ability to extract oil from shale through the 1980s and 1990s. But these drilling improvements and reduced costs, coupled with enhanced resource mapping, fracture reservoir simulations and new developments in the water-chemical mixture used in this process have now made the technique economic for shale gas (which on an energy-equivalent basis, sells for a much lower price than oil). You can think of the mapping and reservoir simulation software as a sort of MRI of natural resources, but at 1,000 to 14,000 feet below the earth’s surface.

Q. If there is so much money in fracking, why are some of the major oil companies reporting losses in North American shale?

A: It’s the perennial problem in the resource industries that when there are large returns everyone piles in in a huge lump, and after two to three years operations come on line and supply surges, in turn exerting downward pressure on prices. Natural gas prices, which I indicated had been higher than $13/MMBtu in 2005 are today just under $4. At the same time, the race for limited production resources, including land leases, has boosted costs. At $4, you are barely at — and possibly below — the current breakeven cost of shale natural gas.

Q: Has fracking caused us to redefine what recoverable reserves are? Has it created a whole new reserve base?

A: The short answer is yes. You can see on the chart (below) how conventional domestic U.S. gas production had been declining for many years. The only thing that stabilized production was the ability to use fracking to economically access “tight gas” — gas that is trapped in previously impermeable rock. Now, with fracking and the advent of the domestic shale gas boom over the past five years, natural gas production is rising substantially in absolute terms for the first time in decades.

Q: Does this mean that the United States is on the threshold of being energy independent — potentially even a major energy exporter?

A: We are still a ways away from energy independence. True, we have lots of natural gas — and shale oil — but it is largely in the places where the collection and distribution pipelines and export terminals are not.

As far as being a global leader in natural gas export, that is even further away, I think. There is no international market in natural gas — unlike, say, global oil, with the Brent benchmark. There are huge price differences in natural gas pricing among countries. The price of natural gas in Japan, for example, is currently over three times the U.S. price.

These differences reflect the fact that you cannot readily get the gas to the markets that will pay the most. The highest natural gas prices in the world are in Japan but virtually all of the liquefaction terminals are in the American East and Southeast. And the availability and charter costs of liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers plays into this as well.

Finally, energy export involves important philosophical and policy issues. What happens if a non-Free Trade Agreement country wants to import natural gas?  What are the license and environmental arrangements?  There are a lot of regulatory and policy barriers to a truly international natural gas market with free movement of cargoes to highest bidder.

Q: How serious are environmental concerns?  Could they derail fracking altogether?

A: Environmental concerns are material. They are a potentially large bump in the road, but I don’t see them derailing fracking. The dynamics behind fracking are too powerful. The one caveat to this might be some extensive, damaging and disruptive seismic event that is believed to be directly triggered by fracking operations.

It is important to recognize that we don’t fully understand what all the environmental issues are as of yet. The most likely scenario given the economic, climate and domestic energy security drivers for fracking is that the timeline for shale gas recovery will be extended from what projections show today. It will take longer and may end up costing more than currently estimated.

Q: Can you summarize these concerns for us?

A: Environmental issues can be grouped into three categories: water supply and quality, air and seismic. Each of these is a huge topic in itself.

Water is an issue both because of the quantities required for the fracking process and the potential for fracking to contaminate the water. To give you an idea of the volume here, the water required to launch a single well is equal to what the average American family will consume over 20 years. That is a lot of water.

Aside from the sheer magnitude of water required is the matter of where much of the shale is located. To the extent that shale deposits are in the Midwest and West where rainfall is infrequent — the water problem is that much greater.

The issue that has gotten the most media attention is the risk to drinking water. Fracking advocates point out that you are drilling thousands of feet beneath the water table, so there’s no issue. Environmentalists focus on what happens as you pass through aquifers on your way down. We may find out more on this when the EPA publishes a large study on fracking and drinking water next year.

A second issue is air quality. A fracking operation produces air emissions from various sources. You have drilling equipment and the transportation emissions (think engines combusting diesel). But you also create fugitive methane gas, which is released into the air during the fracking process. You have volatile organic compounds and various naturally occurring radioactive materials in the rock. We are just beginning to quantify these effects.

And then finally we have seismic issues. Water used in the fracking process is recycled as wastewater and generally disposed of by reinjection. This already happens with “produced water” in conventional oil and gas operations — so it’s not unique to fracking. But now the volume of liquids that are being re-injected is thought to act like a lubricant for the rocks deep down to slip and crack, depending on where you are.

Youngstown, Ohio, for example, experienced a preponderance of small but noteworthy earthquakes at the end of 2011 in what is otherwise thought to be a geologically stable area. Scientists at Columbia University concluded that there appears to be a correlation between injected waste water and these earthquakes.

Q: This is a hugely complex issue. Is there any way to sum up the outlook?

A: From my perspective, fracking and the U.S. natural gas boom are here to stay, but the full benefits are likely further off than the optimists predict. Technology will help reduce costs, but it will take a long time to make current prices profitable. Environmental concerns will constrain supply, so it will help raise prices — but it will also raise costs. Infrastructure issues will also postpone the big efficiencies and the big returns in distributing the gas.

Yet the marketplace is moving very fast to adopt natural gas in autos and trucks and in electricity generation. Simply put, fracking and the expansion of natural gas is a fundamental transformation in the global energy sector that will take years to realize but will have decades of long-term benefits.

Garren Stamp

Professor Earl Brooks

English 138T

Monday, April 6, 2015

Hydraulic Fracturing

Our dependence on fossil fuels for energy has resulted in some of the worst problems of our time. It has resulted in foreign wars, It has sponsored terrorism, and given radical countries the ability to buy devastating weapons. One result of our dependence on fossil fuels that is often not mentioned but just as horrible is the process of hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as simply fracking. Fracking is used to get natural gas and oil from rocks that contain only trace amounts of the substance. This sounds like a good thing, but the good that comes from fracking is dwarfed by the horrible consequences to both the environment and people who live near  tracking sites.

Hydraulic Fracking is a direct result of our increasing dependence on fossil fuels. Throughout the United States there are big deposits of gas-saturated rocks. These rocks only contain a tiny amount of gas each which makes it extremely expensive to try and recover this gas. The High demand for gas in the US pushed scientists to try and create a process to harvest this as in an economically viable way. In 1947 scientist found a process that worked to harvest this tiny amount of gas from each rock. They would pump fracturing liquids containing tiny substances such as salt and sand into the deposits of gas saturated rocks. The amount of this fracturing liquid pumped into the ground depends on the amount required to increase pressure at the target depth. This pressure exceeds the fracture gradient of the rock and cracks the rocks at the target depth. This cracking exposes the inner oil or gas within the rock and allows it to be harvested. This process was found to be highly effective and saw its first successful application in 1950. However, these instances of hydraulic fracturing were on a very small scale. Most of the time it occurred in already made natural gas wells and was just used to squeeze and pressurize the rocks near the crust of the well. This all changed in 1968. The Pan American Petroleum company did the first ever huge job by pumping over 150 tons of liquid, an act that received the nickname of “Massive Fracturing”. This massive featuring started in San Juan Basin, Denver, but quickly spread all over the country from California to Texas up to Pennsylvania. This massive expansion of a new way of fracking resulted in a new type of well. Typical wells were vertical because that was the way that people were drilling. However, vertical wells had a huge amount of runoff and weren’t as effective as they could be. People discovered a way to do horizontal wells. They would inject the liquid from the side since most well basins were more horizontal in nature. This lowers runoff and allows for a more effective way of retrieving the oil or gas. From all these advances over 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs have been done worldwide with the US personally containing for over a million of those jobs.

Injecting over 150 tons of liquid into the earth has the ability to significantly affect the area all around it. How it affects the environment really depends on what type of liquid is injected. When it comes to fracking tons of different liquids can be used. In the past water was the main liquid in use. On average the mixture was about 90% water, 9.5%  sand, and .05% other additives, but due to scientific advancements this is no longer the case. Scientists have use liquefied petroleum gas and propane in order to make fracturing liquids in which water is unnecessary. This advancement has created hundreds of different mixtures used for fracking.  Currently there are three main categories of liquid; gel, foam, or slickwater-based. Each of these liquids is better suited for a different job. The more viscous liquids such as gels and part of the foams are better at keeping the prop pant in suspension while the less vicious slickwater-based and some of the foams allow for higher fluid pumping rates and typically continue to fracture more rocks farther away from the well. These liquids on their own do massive damages to the environment, but these liquids always contain additives in order to best handle the specific characteristics of the well.

Most fracturing liquids use between 3 and 12 different additives. One of the most common is acid, especially hydrochloric or acetic acid. These are most commonly used in the beginning stages in order to clean the perforations and begin the hole in the near-wellbore rock. Another common additive is salt. Salt helps to delay the breakdown of gel polymer chains. Friction reducers such as polyacrylamide are also a common additive. They are used to reduce turbulence in in the liquid which in turn results in a higher flow rate without more pressure. Ethylene glycol is also commonly used in order to prevent scale deposits within the pipe. Glutaraldehyde is also a common additive. Its job is to disinfect the liquid and eliminate a good amount of the bacteria within the well. Citric acid is also commonly used. This is used to prevent corrosion. Finally, Isopropanol is used especially in colder environments. It helps to ensure that the fracturing liquid doesn’t freeze during winter. These are just some of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. They are known to be harmful to the environment as well as people if accidentally consumed, but are still allowed to be pumped into the ground in massive amounts.

While taking advantage of the fossil fuels within the our own boarders is a good idea in order to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, fracking is not the way to do it. Fracking is absolutely horrible for the environment. First their is massive water pollution. As previously mentioned, the chemicals added and the liquid itself are horrible for plant growth and soil quality. Fracking sites poison and chill all the plants and animal life around it. Not only this but the liquid can seep out even further and hit other fresh water bodies. This can poison and kill the animals within the water as well as those that rely on the water to drink. Hydraulic fracturing also damages air quality. One of the main gasses released during fracking is methane. Methane is a horrible greenhouse gas and has been shown to be be 25 times more effective in trapping heat than carbon dioxide (CO2). One of the most recent studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitored a single county in Colorado. They estimated that 4% of the methane produced by these wells escapes into the environment. While this may not seem like a lot, this 4% is equal to the emissions of roughly one to three million cars, and this is just from one county. If these results are applied to every fracking county around the country the amount of emissions becomes astronomically large. Methane isn’t the only harmful gas released during fracking. other chemicals such as xylene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and metals are also released into the air. Exposure to these has been shown to lead to horrible consequences such as cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders, and even death. One shocking fact that shows just how horrible fracking is for air quality is that the air quality of rural Wyoming near drilling sites was shown to be worse than the air quality of Los Angeles’s worst day. Another environmental effect of fracking is man-made earthquakes due to the injection of fracking’s wastewater. These induced seismic events are usually small, the strongest measuring 5.2, but earthquakes occurring where they usually never occur can be devastating to the environment.

Fracking absolutely destroys and contaminates the environment around it. This contamination affects the lives of people around it. One significant and often overlooked effect of fracking  is noise pollution. Fracking is extremely loud and exposure to these types of sounds has been shown to lead to damaged hearing and hearing loss. However, noise pollution from fracking is not limited to the sounds that we can hear. Fracking releases subsonic noise that we cant hear, but that we can feel. This creates the feeling of small vibrations on items and people for people living near fracking sites. Another underestimated negative result of fracking is light pollution. A lot of fracking sites run 24/7 in order to maximize production. In order to do this safely a ton of light is required for workers to be able to see what they are doing at all hours of the night. This light isn’t limited just the sight, but can be seen and brightens a significant amount of area surrounding the sight. These two results have been shown to heavily affect the sleep cycles of people around it. The people who live around fracking sites are affected by the environment damage around them. One example of this occurred in West Virginia. People were able to light their tap water on fire due to chemical runoff during fracking. This is a huge problem. access to fresh water is basically a given in more developed countries such as the united states and now fracking has taken this away from people. This is also a huge fire safety issue for the people. They cant have open flames near their taps or else they risk easily starting a fire. If they happen to start a small fire they cant easily put it out because their water is flammable. This water pollution is not just dangerous in extreme cases, but consumption of this water is horrible for people. Many of the chemicals within the fracturing liquid have been shown to be carcinogens an at the very least not meant for human consumption. No matter how perfectly orchestrated, their is always water runoff from fracturing sites. This runoff flows down into ground water supplies. Ground water is the primary source of water for small towns with their own ground water wells. Because of this, citizens are unknowingly killing themselves by simply drinking their own water because of a fracking company. As previously mentioned fracking greatly affects air quality. People who live near the fracking site are forced to breath in all those harmful chemicals. These chemicals can lead to lung cancer as well as other breathing issues such as  asthma or bronchitis.

The affects of hydraulic fracturing on the environment people is absolutely horrible, but a lot of people blow it off and argue that the effects are not as bad as they may seem. However, if you actually research it, the effects can be and are a lot worse than stated above. One example of this is Dimock, Delaware. Dimock Delaware has seen the increase of fracking sites all around them and one of their main water sources; the Delaware River. Dimock has experienced some of the worst results due to fracking. One example of this is what has happened to their water. Their water has actually turned brown. Not only is it discolored, but consuming their now brown water actually makes the residents extremely sick. This water became so polluted due to fracking that dishes became scarred in the dishwasher and their laundry became discolored and stained. Many citizens installed expense water filtration systems, but still found out that their water contained a lot of unnatural chemicals, especially methane. Their water remained so polluted that citizens would have to take a break from getting a shower and lay on the floor because exposure to the chemicals still in the water had made them extremely dizzy and lightheaded. Sores and frequent headaches also began to appear on the citizens of Dimock.  Another result of the surrounding fracking on Dimock is that many horses and pets have began to lose their hair. Also, In one case a woman’s water well in Dimock actually spontaneously combusted. Citizens can also feel the ground shake when fracking sites are operating. Fracking has destroyed the town of Dimock. Citizens want to leave, but now their property values are so  low that they are forced to stay there. This is just one example of what allowing fracking to come into an area can do to town.

Hydraulic Fracturing is Preventing  this from happening to others or even yourself and your family should be a huge concern for everyone. The easiest way to do this is to create anti-fracking legislation or at the very least more stringent hydraulic fracturing regulation. Currently the government hasn’t done much to try and curtail fracking. Federal law and regulations are weak at worst and nonexistent in many of the intricate harms of fracking. State laws are just as bad and offer very little protection to average citizens from the huge fracking gas and oil companies. We need to contact our congressmen and representatives and tell them that we are against fracking in our town or any town. If we come together as a group of citizens we’ll have enough political power to force the governments hand and make them fix and clean up many of the issues with fracking. In order for this to be successful though the percentage of the population demanding protection and fighting fracking needs to be much higher than it currently is. This is where the importance of grassroots organizations can be seen. We need to come together and talk to our neighbors and friends about the dangers and harms of fracking. The more people that are educated about the true consequences of fracking will result in more people putting pressure on government officials to act.

If you wish to do more than simply write to and contact your representatives there are many groups and organizations you can donate to or volunteer for to help eliminate fracking. When it comes to these groups there are two main categories, state groups and national groups. State groups are the most common. These groups focus on preventing, and/or increasing regulation in their specific state. Since the ability for companies to practice hydraulic fracturing within a state is up to the states, these groups have the ability to ban fracking companies from operating. Although a lot of regulation does comes from state governments, these groups primarily focus on banning fracking in one specific state or even just an area of a state. Federal groups are the complete opposite. While these groups may be for the outright banning of fracking on a federal level, this is almost an impossible goal. Because of this, these groups usually focus on increasing regulation of fracking companies and sights as well as trying to push for safer fracking practices.

Bibliography:

Montgomery, Carl T., and Michael B. Smith. “Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology.” JPT Archives (n.d.): n. pag. Our Energy Policy. JPT Archives, 26 Dec. 2010. Web. 07 Apr. 2015. <http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Hydraulic.pdf>.

Arebotnjak, Tanja. “NRDC Issue Brief.” Fracking Fumes: Air Pollution from Hydraulic Fracturing Threatens Public Health and Communities (2014): n. pag. National Resource Defense Council. NRDC, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nrdc.org/health/files/fracking-air-pollution-IB.pdf>.

“Hydraulic Fracturing Unlocking America’s Natural Gas Resource.” Api.org. America’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry, July 2014. Web. 07 Apr. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.api.org%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FPolicy%2FExploration%2FHYDRAULIC_FRACTURING_PRIMER.ashx>.

Bateman, Christopher. “A Colossal Fracking Mess.” Vanity Fair. N.p., June 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006>.

“Shooters – A “Fracking” History -.” American Oil & Gas History. AAPL, 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/>.

Hartnett-White, K. (2011). “The Fracas About Fracking- Low Risk, High Reward, but the EPA is Against it” (PDF). National Review Online. Retrieved 2012-05-07

Loki, Reynard. “8 Dangerous Side Effects of Fracking That the Industry Doesn’t Want You to Hear About.” Alternet. N.p., 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://www.alternet.org/environment/8-dangerous-side-effects-fracking-industry-doesnt-want-you-hear-about>.