Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has many issues associated with it, causing much controversy about whether it should or should not be done. The purpose of fracking is to create space in underground rock formations so that a natural gas (shale gas) can be expelled. The long term implications of fracking, as of right now, are unsure, but this does not mean that hydraulic fracturing should cease. With all of the debate about problems caused by hydraulic fracturing, many opinions have risen when discussing this topic. Some problems that fracking causes are earthquakes, emitting toxic gas, and using too much water. With stricter regulations and rules, hydraulic fracturing should continue because most of the environmental effects caused by fracking have solutions for them, can be prevented, and are safer than obtaining other fossil fuels.  

Fracking is used when the fluids used to obtain natural gas have either stopped producing or would not normally produce. It is the act of "horizontal drilling," a procedure in which a pipe penetrates the ground and small explosives are used to create holes, through which high-pressured fluids can fracture the rock, allowing trapped gas reserves to release. This is another way of extracting natural gas from the Earth. The fluid required for fracking is composed of water, proppant, and chemical additives. The regulation of how much water is used for this procedure has gotten significantly stricter over the past few years, resulting from many discussions about whether or not this water is being wasted. 

In the state of Pennsylvania, fracking has affected many people. Some claim that, "One fracking well typically needs about 20 million liters of water" (Meng, Oingmin 198). This water could not only possibly contaminate the ground water, but could be used for other industries too. According to Meng and Oingmin, "The water requirement is problematic because substantial geologic evidence that natural vertical flow drives contaminants, such as brine, to near the surface from deep evaporate sources has been found" (Meng, Oingmin 198-206). However, Chen, Huan, and Carter argue that, "The percentage of water used for hydraulic fracturing in each state was relatively low compared to water usages for other industries." This means that fracking does not cause as much harm to the environment as many people believe, especially compared to other industries that use water. This article later states, "From 2009 to 2014, 6.55% (median) of the water volume used in hydraulic fracturing contained recycled produced water or recycled hydraulic fracturing wastewater. 10.84% (median) of wells produced by hydraulic fracturing were treated with recycled produced water" (Chen, Huan, & Carter 152-159). This is a big step in the fracking industry, because by using recycled water, fracking decreases the amount of fresh water being wasted. 

Besides using recycled water in order to decrease the amount of usable water that fracking involves, the location of the fracking wells also effect how much water is being used for hydraulic fracturing. It uses less water than other means of gathering resources, such as oil. According to one article, "Previous studies have found that the mean water used per well for oil production in the Eagle Ford was twice what was needed to stimulate wells located in the Bakken shale play because of the geological differences and the higher productions, instead of the water-to-oil ratios" ("Shale Development, Global Update"). This means that depending on where and which kind of resources an industry is gathering, effects how much water is being used. Many people may also argue that hydraulic fracturing causes damage to the environment and harms the Earth's natural resources. However, the gasses caused by fracking are actually lower than the poisonous emissions caused by other types of fossil fuel extractions. A Nature World News article states, "Those living near fractured wells are potentially at risk of health threats given the increased amount of volatile organic compounds and air toxins in the area" (Jenna). These health threats are caused by the toxic gases and chemicals used for fracking, but with stricter regulations set in place on what goes into the frack fluid, these risks will decrease. Iacurci Jenna further explain that, "On the flip side, when natural gas replaces, say coal as a fuel for generating electricity, the benefits to air quality include lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal and almost none of the mercury, sulfur dioxide or ash" (Jenna). Having these lower gas emissions than other types of fossil fuel extractions are just another reason why fracking should continue. There are several other sources that support this argument, including a New York Times article that explains, "And while the natural gas produced by fracking does ad greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through leakage during gas extraction and carbon dioxide release during burning, it in fact holds a significant environment advantage over coal mining" (Brantley, Meyendorff). Both of these strategies cause some form of harm to the environment, but coal mining has a worse impact than fracking. Brantley and Meyendorff explain, "Shale gas emits half the carbon dioxide per unit of energy as does coal, and coal burning also emits metals such as mercury into the atmosphere that eventually settle back into our soils and waters" (Brantley, Meyendorff). Continuing fracking will help decrease the amount of air pollution that obtaining coal creates, decreasing the amount of harm done to the environment.

One issue that fracking has caused are small earthquakes surrounding the fracturing wells. Meng and Oingmin share that, "Local seismicity associated with high pressure fluid injection into fracking wells has been studied and wastewater injection into deep wells also resulted in small earthquakes within an approximate 1 km radius to a deep well which indicates fracking with high pressure has the potential to cause small earthquakes" (Meng, Oingmin 198-206). These earthquakes could potentially cause significant damage to the environment, but right now they are too weak and not frequent enough to do this damage. According to a New York Times article, "Some of the local effects of drilling and fracking have gotten a lot of press but caused few problems, while others are more serious" (Brantley, Meyendorff). These "more serious" problems could cause severe damage to the environment if they are not regulated properly. The authors further explained, "For example, of the tens of thousands of deep injection wells in use by the energy industry across the United States, only about eighth locations have experienced injection-induced earthquakes, most too weak to feel and none causing significant damage" (Brantley, Meyendorff). These small earthquakes could cause long term damage to the Earth if there are no regulations placed on them, but as of right now there is no evidence proving this theory. 

Another place that has recently experienced this issue with fracking is the United Kingdom. The UK has experienced these types of earthquakes caused by fracking and the chemicals that it requires. One article claims, "The UK Government has argued, for example, that the UK regulatory regime ensures that hazardous substances must not be allowed to enter groundwater and that at the present time 99.75% of the shale gas fracking fluid is made up of water and sand ... " (Jones et. al. 384-390). With this decrease in the amount of chemicals in the frack fluid, and increase in water and sand, the amount of earthquakes caused by fracking should decline. The article later states, "Beyond that a very limited number of chemicals are used and that there are no documented cases of shale gas operations, whether exploration or production, causing subsidence or earthquakes large enough to cause damage at the surface" (Jones et. al.  384-390). With the decrease in the hazardous substances entering the frack fluid and ground water, earthquakes caused by fracking should reduce. This type of regulation on what is in the fracking fluid prevents dangerous chemicals from entering the ground and causing significant earthquakes, so once more industries begin having stricter regulations in the United States, this problem should cease. 

Another concern in the United Kingdom are the toxins that may be emitted into the air by fracking. The United Kingdom's fracking activities have more toxicity than any other energy resources, and the only way that these toxins will decrease is, "Only if the process of fracking is under a stringent set of regulations" (Meng, Oingmin 198). This could be a concern if the toxins caused by fracking get out of hand, but as long as there are strict regulations and precautions being taken, this terrestrial toxicity should not be a problem. Concerns such as this one also appear in the United States when discussing hydraulic fracturing. In the United States, a recent fracking regulation technique has just been introduced to prevent these types of dangerous environmental concerns. This new regulation "Will allow government workers to inspect and validate the safety and integrity of the concrete barriers that line fracking wells. They will require companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in the fracking process within 30 days of completing fracking operations, using an industry-run website called FracFocus" (Davenport). By implementing this new rule, environmental damage caused by fracking will be better monitored and most likely decrease. Since the fracking companies are now required to report the chemicals used for fracking and submit them for officials to view, there will be a greater control on the fracking toxins that are emitted and the chemicals that are used, in order to prevent damage being done in the United States by fracking.

One problem that has been found with fracking that does not have a solid solution to it yet is the long term effects that fracking may cause. Since fracking is such an intense way of obtaining natural resources, there are other problems that it may cause besides earthquakes and pollution. The article, Scientific America, quotes one researcher by saying, "Howarth said he is particularly concerned about fracking emissions because recent data indicates that the planet is entering a period of rapid climate change" (Fischetti). With several other industries and factories polluting the air, climate change has become a very serious issue, and it is important that we do everything we can to prevent that from happening. Fischetti continues, "He noted that the average global temperature compared with the early 1900s is now expected to increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 15 to 35 years, which he called "a tipping point" toward aggressive climate change" (Fischetti). This implies that since the climate is changing so rapidly, fracking and the methane that it produces may affect the Earth more than people think. Continuing with hydraulic fracturing would speed up the process of global climate change by "undermining efforts to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases" (Fischetti). Another researcher in this article suggests that a way to prevent this problem could be to capture the majority of the gas that is being emitted. He says, "Capture is difficult because the gas is emitted along with the flow-back water, but a procedure known as a 'green completion,' in which special equipment traps the gas, has been shown to work" (Fischetti). However, the drillers that conduct the process of fracking do not have a big incentive of doing this, because the market price of methane is less than the cost of capturing it. This concludes that there is, in fact, a way to prevent this climate change that is supposedly caused by fracking, it is just a matter of the fracking industries having an incentive in saving the environment by taking action and doing so. 

Along with other types of coal, oil, and drilling relations, potential health risks are also concerns when it comes to hydraulic fracturing. People who live close to fracking wells are at risk of health problems related to the toxins and emissions put off by fracking. Recent research has been conducted considering fracking has become such a common phenomenon. It looked into the 632 chemicals that could be used for fracking and found, "75% of the chemicals could affect the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems" (Hoffman). These types of risks are not to be taken lightly, considering the harmful effects that they may have on the body. Hoffman continues, "Approximately 40-50% could affect the brain/nervous system, immune and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% could cause cancer and mutations" (Hoffman). This list is not a definite list of the chemicals that all fracking wells use, but these chemicals have the potential to do this much damage to people's health. The article later states, "Health impacts from fracking are only now being examined by health experts, since such large-scale drilling is a recent phenomenon. Exposure to toxic chemicals even at low levels can cause tremendous harm to humans; the endocrine system is sensitive to chemical exposures measuring in parts-per-billios, or less" (Hoffman). With stricter regulations and disclosure about the chemicals mixed into the fluid used for fracking, health risks should decrease and not become such a problem involved with this industry. Even though there are not any scientifically proven cases where these chemicals have effected humans, several journals discuss the dangerous chemicals used and the potential harm they could cause, emphasizing the importance of these regulations placed on fracking. 

Hydraulic fracturing is claimed to have many more environmental problems associated with it, but with all of the governmental and state regulations, it is actually found to have a clean "environmental track record." According to Energy Tomorrow, "Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) have confirmed no direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and groundwater contamination." With all of the accusations of fracking contaminating ground water, it is important to know that these federal agencies have no proof of it actually harming this water. Fracking also allows us to use the natural resources that other industries cannot. Fracking, "Makes it possible to produce oil and natural gas in places where conventional technologies are ineffective" ("Energy Tomorrow"). This access to new fracking wells provides more energy for Americans than anyone could have hoped for. In a Ted Talk video that was posted a few years ago, the speaker, T. Boone Pickens, claimed that natural gas is the way to go. He states, "We are headed to natural gas. Natural gas will do everything we want it to do. It's 130 octane fuel, it's 25% cleaner than oil, it's ours we have an abundance of it, and it does not require refinery" ("Let's Transform Energy- With Natural Gas"). Using fracking as a way to obtain this type of natural gas is both easier and safer than the other options for natural gas. It uses the latest drilling equipment and technology, and has safety regulations that are closely monitored.

Compared to oil and coal mines, fracking has many more benefits, is safer, and faster than obtaining those fossil fuels. Some researchers claim that the methane gas emitted from fracking is more harmful than the carbon dioxide gas produced by coal, but with the stricter regulations on what is placed in the "frack fuel" and newer technology, the methane gas that is released will decrease drastically. The blame on methane gas from fracking is also unreliable, considering the carbon dioxide released from coal has such a drastic timescale. Carbon dioxide has a much longer effect on the climate than methane gas does. According to a recent study by researchers, "Given a large pulse of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, much of it will still be there 10,000 years later. By contrast, even though methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide over a short timeframe, its atmospheric lifetime is only about 12 years" (Mooney). This means that even though fracking may give off a dangerous gas, that gas is still less dangerous than what is being produced by other types of fossil fuel extractions, hence, fracking should continue.

Another reason why fracking is a better option than using coal and oil is because of the shale gas that it emits. By using this shale gas, America is able to produce more and more natural gas from hydraulic fracturing, putting us in one of the top countries for natural gas as energy. President Obama said, "For the first time in 18 years, America is poised to produce more of our own oil than we buy from other nations. And today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else. So we're producing energy. And these advances have grown our economy, they've created new jobs, they can't be shipped overseas- and, by the way, they've also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years. Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America." By using fracking as a way to extract this natural gas for energy, the United States will have a safer and better regulated system in terms of obtaining natural gasses.  

Hydraulic fracturing has many effects on the environment, some being beneficial, while others are not. It should continue because most of the concerns involved with it are outweighed by the newer technology or stricter regulations, but some still remain. Fracking is also a better way of extracting natural gas compared to coal and oil companies, so continuing with hydraulic fracturing will benefit the environment and Earth in a better way.

