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 for 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.  Every 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 also point out the lack of federal legislation and regulations of this type of natural gas and oil 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; it lowers the price of gas and oil, keeps the businesses in the United States which creates jobs, and by comparison does not do a significantly worse amount of damage than any other form of resource extraction like coal mines or oil rigs.  Both of these stances do have valid points, however, people on each side of the argument tend to be unwavering making their views not as divisive as those of the undecided, who are the group of people that can sway the vote in favor or against the continued use of hydraulic fracturing to extract our oil and natural gas.

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 are imbedded in.  The inception of fracking was, initially, not widely accepted due to restrictions in technology that only allowed the company to drill straight down into the earth, therefore, only small amounts of natural gas and oil could be extracted making the process fiscally injudicious.  This all changed in the 1990's when George P. Mitchell invented new technology making it possible for companies to drill, not only vertically, into the ground but horizontally along the shale as well. (Forbes).  This invention caused a boom in fracking; Delaware, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and many other Midwestern and Appalachian Mountain states, even Canada, became inundated with oil companies creating fracking sites in attempt to extract large amounts of natural gas cheaply.  This huge influx of fracking kicked off the concerns of the environment and problems began to arise, but before we get into the problems you have to understand the process of fracking. 

The process of modern fracking starts with drilling a hole 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 explosions are 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 piping being fracked is depleted of gas and oil the company seals off that section of piping with concrete, then repeats 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 by the fracking company to extract the oil and gas is mixed with 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.  

The disposal of this water is a main concern of many in the general public because the disposal of waste-water is not regulated by federal legislation and the disposal of this hazardous fluid is mostly left up to the discretion of the oil and gas companies.  The companies usually dispose of this liquid in two ways; they either leave it in large ponds so the used frack water can be evaporated, or they use a process called fluid injection which is, simply put, to reinsert the used fluid into the Earth and let the ground filter out all of the chemicals.  Fluid injection can clearly cause environmental problems even in the best circumstances, but, the 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 the fluids used for fracking are allowed to use chemicals that are normally banned of use in the United States if it was used in a different medium.  In addition to the exemption of the fracking fluid from environmental laws, the companies that create the chemical concoction are not legally required to share what kind of chemicals are used to create the liquid, because their blends are proprietary. (Gasland).  The companies creating the fracking fluid are reluctant to release the chemical composition of their mixture because they are afraid that another company may copy the formula and profit from it.  This is a problem because each type of chemical requires a unique way of cleaning and also has a differing effects 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 created the documentary, Gasland, which exposed the environmental dangers of fracking and sparked a national furor against hydraulic fracturing.  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, to investigate the problems fracking had reportedly been causing.  The documentary displayed homes of families who's drinking water had been, allegedly, contaminated with the chemicals used in fracking operations around them.  His documentary sparked such public controversy that drilling operations along the Delaware River Basin were temporarily prohibited pending further investigation into environmental consequences caused by fracking.  A particularly shocking section of the documentary that resonated with most viewers as well as news media outlets occurred in Colorado where a man claimed that the natural gas released from the shale rock as a byproduct of fracking had seeped into an underground aquifer he was using as a drinking well causing his water to become 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 of hydraulic fracturing became extremely high and a call for action was warranted which prompted government officials to hire geologists and scientists to do extensive research and analysis into the effects hydraulic fracturing was causing 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 exaggerated and coincidental, there are also many supporters who don't necessarily care about the environmental problems because they believe that the problems attributed to fracking can also be said for every other form of natural resource extraction.

Many scientists and geologist grossly exaggerated their discoveries to back their belief that fracking is a cause for serious environmental concern, this is based off the observation that a very small percentage of areas surrounding fracking sites have reported drinking water contamination which creates a biased analysis.  Many scientists are also skeptical of the validity surrounding the allegations made against 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 can't 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 Colorado that was able to light his drinking water on fire, this particular allegation that natural gas expelled from frack sites caused his tap water to become flammable can also be disproven.  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 previously 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 process of hydraulic fracturing causes earthquakes.  Geologists have found this claim to be 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 believe that despite the scientific evidence provided to them that fracking is too advantageous to stop.  Fracking 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 insources jobs to America in a time where a lot of other companies are outsourcing jobs overseas.  In addition to the creation of jobs fracking also produces domestic oil and natural gas, which helps our GDP, according to pioneering, fracking alone accounted for $284 billion of the United State's GDP.  Hydraulic fracturing 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. In my opinion fracking should continue and I even advocate and increase in its use, my opinion would be hard to change, just like those who are against fracking.  The proponents and critics are not the group that needs to be convinced, there is a group of people who are undecided in their beliefs that are the deciding populace in whether or not hydraulic fracturing will continue.  In order to receive the support of the undecided voters I think that oil and natural gas companies should be regulated in their use of hydraulic fracturing, this is the only thing about fracking that gives many people concern.  Unregulated oil companies can get out of hand and cause a series of potentially irreversible environmental problenms and economic corruption.   

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 authorities know how to respond 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 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 is deemed too dangerous to the environment or humans, then it should not be allowed use in the liquid 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 safe and inhabitable for years to come is absurd.

Quaternary, fracking should also be reinstated under the law of CERCLA, which means that the United States is liable for any spills, pollution, or other accidents involving hazardous materials and is therefore required to clean up the mess and 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 aquatic ecosystems and nothing could really be done to clean up the spill, 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.

The authorization of this proposed legislation could cause many undecided voters to vote in favor of representatives that would support fracking.  The laws would also benefit our society and lessen the environmental impact that hydraulic fracturing currently has.  Increasing the use of hydraulic fracturing in the United States would provide our country with cheaper natural gas, provide us with an influx of jobs, and add more to our GDP. 

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 suggestions on legislation listed above, undecided voters could be persuaded into voting in representatives that support fracking which could be the future solution to the growing demand for energy in the United States. Fracking could provide the United States and its citizens with jobs, natural gas, and oil all with very little danger to the welfare of the environment and of the United States' citizens.

