Nations have been built, dynasties created, wars fought, and trillions of dollars have been made off of two resources pivotal to our society's structure and how we live our lives.  These two resources do everything from power our cars and produce electricity to creating asphalt and plastic bags, nearly everything we use in daily existence is powered by oil and natural gas.  With demand fro oil and gas so high, and continuously rising, innovative techniques had to be developed to extract the oil and gas from the ground in order to sustain the demand,  Usually when people think of oil and gas extraction they think of large oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico or the hundreds pump-jacks bobbing up and down along the plains of Texas and Oklahoma, however, these can only collect oil and gas from reservoirs in the ground, they can not withdraw oil and gas from shale rocks that are saturated with both of these resources.  Oil and gas can get compressed into the cavities of shale rock, thus making it impossible to extract using customary methods of oil and gas collection, however, on March 18, 1951 the oil company Halliburton successfully created a system that made it possible to collect these two resources from the shale known as hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking. (Blackmon).  This form of extraction has become highly utilized in recent years due to its low-priced means of extraction in comparison to alternative options as well as the high demand the world has for natural gas and oil.  Just like with any other form of resource extraction there are unavoidable environmental consequences that occur, hydraulic fracturing is no different.    Many opponents of fracking accredit the process to, pollution, water contamination, destruction of habitats, and even claim that fracking can increase the probability and frequency of earthquakes.  Critics of the process also point out the lack of federal legislation and regulations of this type of natural gas and removal.  Proponents of hydraulic fracturing say that some of those problems are grossly exaggerated and are justifiable because of the advantages that fracking creates such as; lowers the price of gas and oil, keeps the business in the United States, and by comparison does not do significantly worse amount of damage than any other form of resource extraction like coal or oil rigs.  Both of these stances do have valid points, however, the answer to making hydraulic fracturing a viable, favorable, solution for the future and our consistent use of natural gas and oil is for both, the proponents and the critics, to meet in the middle.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process first successfully used by the company Halliburton to extract oil and natural gas from the shale rocks that the resources get imbedded into.  The inception of fracking was not widely accepted at first due to the restrictions in technology that only allowed the company to drill straight down into the earth and only could collect small amounts of gas and oil, therefore, making the process fiscally injudicious.  This all changed in the 1990's when George P. Mitchell invented a new way of drilling that made it possible to drill into the ground horizontally along the shale instead of just one specific point. (Forbes).  This invention caused a boom in fracking all across North America, Canada and the Dakotas fracking towns were created as oil drillers from across the country flocked there to make their money in the fracking business.  Delaware, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and many other Midwestern and Appalachian mountain states also became inundated with oil companies crating fracking sites in attempt to extract natural gas cheaply.  This huge influx of fracking kicked off the concerns of the environment and problems began to arise, but before we get in the problems you have to understand the process of fracking.

The process of modern fracking starts with a hole being drilled into the ground followed by a pipe.  At first the piping is drilled vertically downward until it reaches a shale formation, then the operator drills horizontally along the formation.  Once the extent of the piping is reached, explosives are set off in a small section of the piping in order to create small fractures in the shale rock.  After the explosion is set off, water mixed with sand and other chemicals is flushed down the piping at high pressure to reach into the shale and extract the gas and oil.  After the section of the pipe being fracked is depleted of gas and oil the company seals off that section of piping with concrete, then repeat the process in another section of the piping until the company has extracted all of the oil and gas in the shale formation.  The water being used to further fracture the shale rock and extract the natural gas and oil is mixed with sand and hundreds of chemicals that are considered to be dangerous to the environment.  If this is not properly disposed of the concern is that this chemically latent water could cause disastrous results in the environment.

This is a main course of concern to the general public and  the disposal of fracking waste-water is not regulated by federal law and mostly left upto the oil companies to decide th how to dispose of the hazardous fluid.  The companies usually dispose fo this liquid in two ways; they either leave it in large ponds so the water can be evaporated, or the use a process called fluid injection which is, simply put, reinsert the used fluid into the Earth and let the ground filter out all of the chemicals.  This can clearly cause environmental problems in best circumstances, however, these potential problems are augmented by the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  This law actually made fracking fluid exempt from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as CERCLA (Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title III-C-322).  This means that the companies that create these fluids used for fracking can have chemicals in them that may, in other circumstances, be be banned from use in the United States.  In addition to the exemption of the fracking fluid from the environmental laws, the companies that create the chemcial concoction are not legally required to share what kind of chemicals are used to create the liquid, because the blends ore proprietary. (Gasland).  This means that the companies creating the fluid are reluctant to release the chemical composition of their mixture because they are afraid that another company may copy the formula and profit form it.  This causes a problem because each type of chemical requires a different way of cleaning as well as has a different affect on the environment.  This problem and many more were spotlighted by the documentary Gasland produced by Josh Fox.

Most of the environmental concerns surrounding hydraulic fracturing were unbeknownst to the general public until Josh Fox's documentary Gasland which highlighted the environmental dangers of fracking and sparked a national furor.  Fox, traveled to towns along the Delaware River Basin, which was an area that was being heavily fracked due to the recent discovery of shale rock formations in the region t, to investigate the problems fracking had been causing.  The documentary displayed homes and families who's drinking water had been allegedly contaminated with the chemicals used by fracking operations.  His documentary sparked such public controversy that drilling operations along the Delaware River Basin were prohibited pending further investigation into environmental consequences caused by fracking.  A particularly shocking section of the video that resonated with most viewers as well as news media outlets occurred in Arkansas where a man claimed that the natural gas released from the shale rock as a byproduct of fracking had seeped in his drinking well and made his tap water flammable.  Gasland is an eye-opening documentary and displays a lot of the environmental concerns that fracking causes however there are a few points that Josh Fox missed or did not thoroughly go over in his documentary.

Gasland brought to light many environmental consequences that are related to fracking, but he didn't cover all aspects.  After the release of Josh Fox's documentary public dissent became extremely high and a call for action was warranted which prompted geologists and scientists to do extensive research and analysis into the affects hydraulic fracturing causes on the environment.  What they discovered was more surprising than expected.  Fracking not only has the potential to contaminate water and release large quantities of methane but it can allegedly be attributed to earthquakes happening around areas of large fracking operations.  According to cbsnews, "Until 2008, Oklahoma averaged 2 earthquakes a year, now it's almost 3 a day." Oklahoma has become the earthquake hotspot of the United States surpassing even California.  This all being said there are many geologists and scientists who believe that a lot of the controversies surrounding fracking are grossly exaggerated and coincidental, there are also many who don't necessarily care and believe that the environmental problems caused by fracking can also be said for every other form of natural resource extraction. 

Many scientists and geologist fallacious and grossly exaggerated their belief of this is based off of the observation that a very small percentage of areas surrounding fracking sites have reported drinking water contamination.  Scientists also are skeptical of the validity surrounding the allegations associated with fracking because they tested drinking water that people have claimed to have been contaminated and found no traces of any chemicals associated with fracking.  "I was personally involved in 50 or 60 wells.  There have been tens of thousands of wells in Colorado, and we cant find anywhere in Colorado a single example of the process of fracking that has polluted groundwater." Gov. John Hickenlooper, trained geologist.  One of the most eye-opening scenes from Gasland was the man from Arkansas that was able to light his drinking water on fire, this particularcase can not be proven that the natural gas that caused his tap water to be flammable was caused by nearby fracking sites.  Natural Gas and methane occur naturally in the ground and groundwater, if a person were to create a well that had natural gas or methane in it then it would cause their tap water to be flammable, reports of this exact thing happening have dated back to the 1920's, 30 years before fracking.  Geologists have also debunked the other claim made by many critics of fracking that it the prcess of hydraulic fracturing causes earthquakes.  Geologists have found this claim to be grossly over-exaggerated, while yes hydraulic fracturing can cause earthquakes, they are extremely small and rarely occur. (how oil and gas).

A lot of advocates of fracking believ that despite the scientific evidence provided to them that fracking is too advantageous to stop.  Frackiing brought in 2.1 million jobs in 2012 and is projected to grow to 3.9 million by 2025 (pioneering), the bottom line to many is that hydraulic fracturing brings jobs to America in a time where a lot of other companies and jobs are moving overseas.  In addition to the creation of jobs fracking also produces domestic oil and natural gas, which helps our GDP, according to pioneering fracking accounted for $284 billion in our GDP, that is fracking alone.  Hydraulic fracturing also accounts for 43% of our domestic oil and 67% of our natural gas (pioneering).  Fracking has made itself a key role in America's economy and banning it would but millions of people out of jobs, as well as cripple the United State's economy.

Hydraulic fracturing is extremely beneficial to the economy of The United States and many of the controversies surrounding it are questionable in validity.  This being said in my own opinion, fracking should continue and I would even advocate the use of it more, however, I do see the problems presented by the other side of the argument.  These oil and natural gas companies should be regulated, this is the only thing about fracking that gives me concern, unregulated oil companies can get out of hand and cause a series of potentially irreversible problems. 

To start with, the companies creating the fracking fluid should be required to share what chemicals are in each mixture of the fluid, in case the worst happens and there is a spill or the chemicals do leak into drinking water people know how to act and clean up the mess properly.

Secondly, there should be a better system for disposing of used fracking chemicals than letting it evaporate in a large pond randomly placed in an inhabited area or putting it into the ground.  I suggest that the water should be placed into one central location depending on the region of the country to evaporate, this is one idea, however if the companies creating the fracking fluid were required to share the list of chemicals, then it would be possible for water treatment facilities to accurately cleanse the cleanse the water of the chemicals and potentially give the water back to the companies to mix with chemicals and use again.

Tertiary, exempting fracking fluid from all of the environmental protection acts was a vacuous decision, no chemicals that are banned from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Clean Drinking Water Act should be allowed use in the United States.  Period.  If a chemical can cause harm to the environment or humans, then it should not be allowed use in the used for fracking.  The safety of the citizens of the United States should be held at highest level of consideration, and exempting fracking chemicals from the laws that were put in place to help make America inhabitable and healthy for years to come is absurd.

Quaternary, fracking should also be reinstated under law of CERCLA, which means that the United States is liable for any spills, pollution, or other accidents involving hazardous materials and therefore require to fix the problem.  This once again, should be reinstated for the health and safety of American citizens.

Fracking should be prohibited from being done offshore, I could not find and evidence on whether or not fracking was actually being used in ocean drilling, but I wanted to make that point because if a pipe were to burst or a leak were to happen the chemically mixed fracking water would be nearly impossible to clean up.  The chemicals in the fracking water would cause extreme damage to the aquatic ecosystem and nothing could really be done to solve the problem, the only thing that could be done would be to hope that the ocean dilutes the mixture enough to where it wouldn't be harmful to fish or other marine life.

Hydraulic fracturing is an innovative way of reaching reserves of oil and natural gas that would normally be impossible or too expensive to extract.  Fracking may have a few potentially concerning environmental consequences but it is advantageous to continue the process of fracking due to the economic benefits.  This being said fracking should be regulated in order to make it as safe as possible for the environment and the towns and inhabitants around the fracking sites.  With the regulsation suggestions above, fracking could be the future to the energy of the United States and provide its citizens with natural gas and oil all with very little danger to the welfare of the environment and of the United State's citizens.

