Fracking Deemed to Have Extensive Negative Impactsby Lindsay Carroll, Liam Cavanaugh, and Anthony Zambella

Abstract: With an extensive look into the methods of fracking, as well as the environmental and health effects associated with the process, this paper will explore why fracking methods have overwhelmingly negative impacts upon our ecosystems. Current fracking mechanisms provide an easy path to habitats and aquifers.  The clear negative impact of crude oil on plants and animals is reason enough to call for further investigation into this issue. In addition, this paper explains why tighter regulations are required to combat the harm being done. If tighter regulations cannot be imposed, we see a need to find alternative forms of energy extraction.

Introduction:Hydraulic Fracturing, a process used to extract oil and natural gas from the

Earth’s crust, was first implemented in Oklahoma in 1968 (Law et al 1993). Geologists quickly became aware of the abundance of natural gas in the ground and soon realized the impact this would have on both the United States and world economies (Law et al 1993). Since its discovery, Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” for short, is considered contentious, with deleterious effects and environmental concerns such as drinking water and groundwater contamination, a contraction in air quality in areas that frack, and a threat to both humans and plants in both the short term and long term. Fracking requires an exorbitant amount of water and poses many risks including carcinogenic chemicals being released into the environment (Especially in drinking supplies as mentioned above) (Law et al 1993). These concerns of the environment and animal health, it is no surprise that fracking is considered controversial and has sparked a lively debate between oil companies, economists and the various governments around the world.

Imagine a world where you do not have to worry about the contaminants in your water supply. You do not have to worry about the food you eat or the environment you live in and its survival. Unfortunately, this does not exist and fracking is partly to blame. However, this world is possible if government officials can come together and impose tighter regulations on the process of fracking and the way the companies disposes of their fracking waste. But, governments all over the world are struggling with the question of whether or not the benefits of fracking outweigh the detriment caused to environments and people alike. Fracking allows states to yield economic gains which tend to sway these decisions. While looking at the methods of fracking and how this affects the environment, it can be seen that something needs to be done regarding the policies that pertain to fracking as a whole. The general public’s growing awareness to the issue will be a major turning point in pushing the world to a new source of energy requisition or a new energy source altogether. In this paper, we as the authors will discuss hydraulic fracturing and briefly oil drilling, as a negative impact on the environment as a whole. The (i) reckless methods of extracting these fuels have (ii) lead to environmental pollution, which is allowed to continue to occur due to (iii) loose regulations.

Section I: Fracking Methods

by Liam CavanaughFracking is a catalyst, like any other catalyst it is not needed in a system but

dramatically increases the effectiveness when included. Fracking is a catalyst for drilling, it is not necessary to obtain resources like oil and natural gas, but without it the process is not nearly as productive. If fracking was ended today, during the next five years in the United States, 45% percent of domestic natural gas production and 17% of oil production would be lost (HIS Global Insight 2009). When companies use a technique like fracking, their mindset is to make drilling more productive and avoid any obstacles that get in their way. These "obstacles" include following safety regulations, disposing of wastewater and chemicals, and having methane leak into drinking water. Fracking's negligent methods cause avenues of destruction for surrounding areas.

The birth and rise of fracking shows how its design is built off productivity and disregard for anything else. Initially used in the 1860's, it was very primitive, drillers would drop explosives materials like dynamite or nitroglycerin down a well, tossing safety aside. Making a semi-successful but dangerous fracking technique. The first man to advance fracking was Lt. Col. Edward A. Roberts’s, his invention called the “exploding torpedo” was patented in 1865. The design was a cylindrical tube made out of iron, filled with twenty pounds of gunpowder, with a priming charge at the top of it (Wells 2014a). Roberts took another step forward in fracking by flushing water down the borehole before the torpedo was set off. Now when fired, the water would concentrate the explosion and split the rock more effectively. This advancement in fracking from a simple tool to a highly sought after technique helped fracking grow through the years. By 1919 drilling was mandated by the government to add a new component to their wells, steel tubes called casings for safety issues(Wells 2014b). Casings helped the structure and integrity of  wells, but these new casing posed another barrier that fracking had to bypass. Lt. Col’s invention wasn’t concentrated enough to effectively penetrate both the casing and bedrock.  In 1939, Ira J. McCullough invented a bullet shooting device that could penetrate both, casing and bedrock, to stimulate resources(Wells 2014b) .The device could be fired at multiple times and at different depths in the well. This concept of small, high pressure projectiles is what fracking is based off and has caused it to grow to being

used in 95% of drilling operations today (HIS Global Insight 2009) 

Modern fracking's design is a perforating gun reminiscent of McCullough's design, being sent down a wellbore to reach the end of the piping (Figure 1). Resting in the pipe the perforating gun is fired. Sending projectiles through steel pipes, cement casing and bedrock creating fractures in the layer. Then proppant, a slurry of water, sand, and toxic chemicals, is pumped into the well and fills the newly made fractures. Keeping them ajar and allowing resources to flow through the perforations created. Fracking's purpose is allowing wells to be more productive in initial years and stimulate old wells that have gone dry (Geology). Fracking has become an motivation for drilling. To better understand modern fracking and its consequences, it's important to get an idea of how a drill site is conducted, what goes into setting a drill up, and the resources used in the process drilling. Since the increase in fracking has caused a recent uptake in wells. When oil or gas have been located in an area, the surrounding land is cleared of trees, shrubs, and other wildlife that could possibly interfere with drilling. A strategy has to be picked between vertical and horizontal drilling. A vertical drill site goes perpendicular with the Earth’s core, ranging between depths 3000 and 8000 ft. below sea level(EPA 1994). If drillers believe a resource is abundant enough or is found to be located  beneath a heavily populated area like a city or town, horizontal drilling is used. Horizontal drilling is a piping technique beginning with pipes going perpendicular to the Earth. But when reaching resource a filled layer, start aiming parallel with the layer, maximizing its time in resource. Horizontal piping can reach up to 5,000 ft long, combined with vertical piping, the total length of a single well could  reach up to 12,000 ft. Wells this size need huge quantities of materials to function  

After a drill plan is confirmed a site is ready to begin drilling.  Basic components of a drill site are setup, motor for the drill bit to run, a pump to push lubrication for the drill bit (drill mud), and proppant (chemical fluid) for fracking is necessary (Figure 2). Most importantly, drilling needs water. Drilling and Fracking consume immense amounts

of water to operate. As a Drill runs it needs water to flow to the bit, keeping it cool and also keeping a constant pressure in the well so a crack in a casing will not occur. In a hydraulic fracturing well, an estimated 2 to 4 million gallons of water is expected to be used until well completion (EPA 2009). If a horizontal pipe well is in place, it could double the water intake. Consuming so much water is strenuous on areas with scarce water supplies, putting stress on communities. "Of the nearly 40,000 oil and gas wells drilled since 2011, three-quarters were located in areas where water is scarce, and 55% were in areas experiencing drought"(Goldenberg 2014).

Once the drill reaches a specific depth, it is retracted back to the opening of the well so casings can be added and cemented in place. Casings, which were talked about briefly earlier, are a wells defense against aquifer contamination and structural weakening. First is the conductor casing, typically a steel tube placed at a depth relatively close to the well opening. Once it’s put in place, cement is pumped into the well through the casing and cement flows through the casing eventually filling the space between casing and bedrock, called the annulus. When the annulus is filled with cement the drill bit is added back to the steel strings and drilling continues. As the drill reaches the layer of earth containing aquifers and groundwater, another casing is made and cemented in place. This is the surface casing, its purpose is to deter contamination from natural resources flowing up the well with aquifers and groundwater that could potentially be

used for drinking and irrigation in the surrounding area. The drill bit is connected once again to the steel strings and proceeds down to the final bedrock where the resources lie. After the bit has drilled through the resource rich layer, it stops at the base of the layer and then the final casing is set, called the production casing. The production casing is the most abundant casing in the well, its runs along the resource rich layer. Each of these casing connect to each other in an attempt to seal the well off completely.  These casing are so important since they are the only part of a well that's sole purpose is to protect the environment against spills and chemical contamination. But the reckless attitude that comes with fracking in maximizing profits on a drill without worrying about the consequences come to  light. Drilling companies cutting corners by  buying low grade concrete to make a site more profitable. The BP oil spill in Gulf of Mexico had poor cement, combined with other factors the oil rig exploded and $100 billion of damages were caused"(AP 2010). The low grade concrete causes casings that are meant to seal the bedrock from the gas and oil to become weak. They start to crack and the resources are able to leak out. This allows pressure to build and fossil fuels to explode out of the well. It is exspecically dangerous if natural gas is being drilled in a well and weak cement is present. If allowed to escape it will continue up the well till reaching aquifers and drinking water, contaminating them. It is a common occurrence for residents living around fracking drills. "Methane concentrations are 17x higher in drinking-water wells near fracturing sites than in normal wells"(Osborn et al. 2011).The natural gas and proppant will disperse throughout the aquifers, contaminating them with methane and a slew of chemicals in proppant with many being harmful to humans. If a leak is present the only way to stop it is if the well is shut down and plugged.  

 If fracking’s concrete is of good quality another concern is the explosive charges are so powerful they cause seismic activity when set off. They is amplified when a horizontal drilling technique is being used on a well since it can be fired more than once. The perforating gun can be pulled for thousands of ft. till it reaches the end of the production casing. The powerful gun could be fired more than 100 times along the pipes to it reaches the vertical section, causing seismic activity throughout surrounding land every time it’s shot. (EPA 1994). The links between fracking and seismic rumbles are evident with the increased seismic activity for areas surrounding modern drilling wells. In Oklahoma, Ohio, and Texas, which are all heavily drilled with fracking, study shows a 40 percent increase in seismic activity(Ramsey 2014).

The high viscosity proppant that is pumped in after the perforating gun can be troublesome. Proppant main use is as a wedge in the cracks of the bedrock, the sand keeps the bedrock from closing by less than 5 nm so the natural resource will continue to flow for years. The proppant has other uses as well, it contains a plethora of chemicals that have varying purposes, from methanol being used to thicken the fluid, to ethylene glycol used to stop scale deposits. As important as proppant is to fracking , its use is very costly to the environment.These chemicals are toxic to organisms.  After being flushed into the wellbore the proppant is pumped out of the well, but only 20% to 50% of it is successfully removed from the wellbore(EPA 2004). Leaving more than half of the fluid to seep into the Earth with its vast mixture of chemicals. The remaining proppant is pumped out and put in a pit with just a tarp lining. The tarp has no cover left and when the sun is out proppant is allowed to evaporate into the ozone leading to air pollution(Coleman 2013) Proppant leaking out of the tarp into the surround environment

and sinking through the topsoil and filtering into drinking water is another way fracking damages the environment. When fracking is completed leftover proppant fluid must be disposed of but it is contaminated and can't be recycled. Companies go about this by transporting this highly chemical fluid to another well that’s function is to inject the waste into the ground. This injection well uses high force water jets to send the fluid thousands of ft. into the Earth. This causes seismic activity of even greater proportions than the fracking process and can cause serious complications to surrounding areas. Scientists have linked more than 2,500 mini earthquakes that have occurred in Oklahoma over the past 5 years to wastewater wells(Aktin 2014).  

Fracking's goal of ultimate profitability allows its harmful chemicals into surrounding environments with no afterthought. Water continuously being consumed by glutinous drilling sites, proppant containing dangerous chemicals being injected into deep wells with high powered drills causing notable seismic activity, and low grade equipment cannot continue without environments suffering even more catastrophic damage. Drill sites have adopted nonchalant measures of regulation and combined with the disregard for the environment is leading to more habitat destruction.  A significant amount of damage has been done to the environment to warrant change. If nothing is done to contain the dilemma and help stop future disturbances, many ecosystems will have permanent damage.

Section II: Natural Gas and Oil Fracking by Anthony Zambella

When oil spills and gas occur due to mismanaged fracking and oversight (as described in the previous section), the consequences may, and in many cases are, severe. Crude oil, when left in ecosystems, is catastrophic to animal, plant and human life. the severity of the impact is dependent upon a few factors: the characteristics of the oil itself (is it crude, refined, etc.), whether the organisms that come in contact with the oil are sensitive or resistant to the oil, and conditions in nature such as temperature of the water and weather conditions. The oil that is extracted from the earth contains chemicals called Volatile Organic Compouds (VOCs) but most important (and more specifically), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are deadly when exposed to animals in moderate to high concentrations. Not only are the effects of PAHs lethal, they can also be broken down into acute (short term) and chronic (long term) effects. The acute effects include, but are not limited to, the smothering ramifications that can hinder the respiratory systems that animals and plants use to breathe and are often fatal. Both acute and chronic effects can also be the result of directly ingesting the oil (consuming), inhalation of the oil through the respiratory system, or even absorption through the skin or protective layer of the organism and becoming poisoned. Chronic effects can either be more subtle, or more severe than acute effects depending on the severity of the exposure. I will examine the acute and chronic disadvantageous effects of exposure to crude oil and shale gas for animals and plant life alike, and prove that these lethal hazards are reason enough to call for change in our fracking methods.

Aquatic life in the ocean around oil spills can become affected by it in three major ways: through ingestion of the oil directly by eating or drinking, by inhaling volatile compounds released by the oil, or by the oil being absorbed through the skin or protective membrane the organism has (Ober 2013). These three swift methods of entry can cause a

plethora of repercussions, both acute and chronic. The acute effects of crude oil on juvenile loggerhead sea turtles are well studied. When said oil is ingested by accident, the turtles begin to display large, acute changes in how their epidermis, their outer layer of skin, is composed. This is very concerning, because this makes them receptive and prone to many different types of infections (M.E. Lutcavage et al 1995). These lesions and surface malformations of the skin can lead to infections such as focal erosive dermatitis, septicemia ulcerative cutaneous disease, and papillary dermatitis (Lutz et al 1996). Although in general the chronic effects of crude oil on these turtles are not extensive, there is one chronic symptom they possess when exposed. The turtles’ blood tests also showed that they were victims of polychromasia, which is when there is an abnormally high concentration of red blood cells in the bloodstream due to a premature release; this is a sign of bone marrow stress. It is difficult to monitor the chronic effects of crude oil, as they are known to be indiscriminate feeders, meaning they will eat just about anything, or attempt to eat something out of curiosity. The foreign objects that the consume can remain in their system and digestive tract for weeks to even several months (Lutcavage et al 1995). With this idea alone it can be inferred that consumption of oil causes malformations, increased susceptibility to disease, cancer, irreversible damage and in extreme cases, death to these turtles.

Another example of marine life that is adversely affected by crude oil is the yellowfin tuna, especially those recently spawned (See figure 3). The hatchling pictured at the bottom was chronically exposed to the crude oil, thus showed abnormalities such as malformations,  accumulation of fluid due to heart failure, irregular heartbeats and poor

growth of fins and eyes (Inarconda et al 2013). These malformations in the embryo and infancy stages directly correlate with a decrease in cardiac and motor functions. In essence, the crude oil compromises the cardiac cells’ ability to receive a stimulus, thus causing arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats)  and in severe cases heart failure (Brette et al 2014). Growing up, these fish will continue to express a general decrease in health in comparison to their unexposed counterparts. Apart from fish and turtles, both whom are aquatic organisms that spend the majority of their life in the water, birds can also be negatively impacted by crude oil spills. When oil clings to the wings of the birds, this causes the feathers to stick together. This causes an acute debilitation in the waterproofing effect that they have, which exposes their sensitive skin to extreme temperatures, and thus opens up the possibility of sickness from not being able to thermoregulate. As if this was not dangerous enough, the bird also attempts to preen its feathers, which results in ingestion of the oil, leading to more health hazards such as dehydration, damage to its vital organs and weight loss (Ober 2013). On the physiological level, Birds that are chronically exposed to crude oil can have genotoxic metabolites that are formed in their systems which can bind to DNA. If this occurs, the product is a DNA adduct (DNA that is covalently bonded to a cancer causing chemical). If this is not fixed, and the bird is continually exposed to the oil, this DNA adduct becomes prevalent in the bird’s system and will lead to mutations and even cancer (Bergeron et al 2014).

Aquatic organisms are not the only forms of life that are unfavorably affected by oil. Humans can be exposed in numerous ways. Those that live in the vicinity of oil fracking are at risk of having their water supplies contaminated. According to David C. Holzman (2011), Methane levels found in 68 private wells located near fracking sites in New York and Pennsylvania fell within the defined action level for hazard acknowledgement (greater than 10 mg/L but less than 28 mg/L), meaning that the levels were unsuitable for human consumption, That is, if humans with sensitive digestion systems using these wells as a water source could begin to express acute but subtle symptoms, as seen in figure five below.

If humans ingest, inhale or come into physical contact with crude oil in suggestive amounts, acute issues can arise such as neurological, eye irritation and respiratory problems. VOCs that are inhaled through the lungs or nose showed mucous membrane disorders. Chronic exposure to these inhaled, threatening chemicals showed a trend of nerve fiber degeneration which can result in changes in sensation and muscle weakness in feet and hands (McCoy et al 2010). when it comes to the child development inside the womb, fetuses whose mothers inhale or ingest the chemicals are more susceptible to adverse effects, mostly because their organs are still developing and are less efficient at detoxifying chemicals introduced into their system (McCoy et al 2010). Aside from blatant exposure, there are more indirect ways crude oil can make its way into the human physiology. When fish that are imbued with crude oil are caught by commercial fishermen and sold on the market, this opens up one possible opportunity for humans to danger. With ingestion of infected fish, humans could become victim to a multitude of issues.  The PAHs in consumed seafood need to be monitored closely. Although initial chemical tests in the Gulf of Mexico (from the BP oil spill) have been completed and trends show that the levels of PAHs in fish consumed by humans is safe , this can change at any time (Julia M. Gohlke et al 2011). Regardless of length and extent of exposure,

humans show a general negative response to the crude oil when exposed unprotected.

Plants, both aquatic and terrestrial, are arguably the most important organisms on the planet. Not only do they provide oxygen for animals to breath, they are also a key food source, purify they Earth’s water and in recent history have been important pharmaceutically. Plants are vital to most ecosystems due to the oxygen they provide and the base point in food chains, both in water and on land. Ecosystems that have plants as a key species are at high risk when it comes to fracking. When oil spills occur, these aquatic plants are at high risk of mortality. Phytotoxicity (the toxic effect that a compound has on plant growth) of crude oil has been extensively studied. Mangrove forests consist of a different variety of trees that grow in tropical sea coasts; These are particularly susceptible to oil spills. Mangroves, when they absorb crude oil from its surroundings, can experience adverse effects from days to months, but may take up to as long as fifty years to fully recover. However, mangrove seedlings are more severely impacted than adult or mature mangrove trees, and this is a shared general trend in plants that are exposed to crude oil (Lewis et al 2013).  As seen in figure 5, Alex Chindah and

his team studied the effects of crude oil exposure on mangrove seedlings (2010). The results are evident: seedlings exposed to crude oil showed a dramatic mortality rate while unexposed thrived and developed healthily.

Animals and plants, aquatic or terrestrial, all share a common trait when it comes to crude oil and shale gas: they do not respond well to it. Some of these effects include (but are not limited to) acute health issues such as respiratory inflammation and eye irritation, as well as more long term effects such as genetic mutations, irreversible organ damage and cancer. Methods of extracting crude oil must either be reevaluated, or alternative sources of energy must be researched. After extrapolating the data for said different organisms, one can assume that public perception of oil fracking is on a rapid decline. Furthermore, our next section will discuss the legal loopholes that fracking companies have at their advantage in order to evade expensive methods of cleaning up after themselves.

Section III: The Need for Tighter Regulationsby Lindsay Carroll

Loose regulations are to blame for reckless fracking methods and their negative impacts on the environment. The serious health an environmental concerns, as well as the debates and riots , pose an outcry for tighter regulations on the process of hydraulic fracturing. I will examine how these particular aspects lead to the need for the tighter regulations. There is a negative cycle involved; the lack of regulatory policies, and in turn lack of punishment for pollutionary practices, encourage no reason for companies to change their ways. By looking at nations around the world, it is clear that this problem is bigger than just the United States. Leaders, such as the President of the United States, Barack Obama and the President of France, François Hollande, find personal conflict in deciding between the economic gains of their nations and the well being of their citizens. If fracking is to continue, there will be a need for tighter regulations. If these new

regulations cannot occur, there will be a priority for alternative means of energy

extraction.In order to understand why tighter regulations must be imposed, it is important to

look at the detrimental effects on the environment and human health. Previously discussed in section 2, I will give a brief summary of some of these topics in order to bring particular issues to light. Figure 6, to the right, shows the basic set up of a natural gas well used for fracking. A pipe protrudes down into the ground where sand and a bit of water and chemicals are sent out of the pipe to cause the  fractures or cracks seen. They grow and reach the ground water, releasing all kinds of chemicals. This leads to health concerns for citizens.

Based on Steven Hsieh’s research in conjunction with the Human and Ecological Risk Assessment by the Proceedings of Natural Academy of Sciences, some shocking facts were discovered about the particular pollutants that have been escaping into our water supplies. By testing waters near locations where fracking had been done, the contamination by methane gas was over 17 times greater than areas where fracking did not occur. The shale is between 7,000 and 10,000 feet under the surface of the ground and about 50% of the fracking fluid is left under the ground for a long period or never recovered (Hsieh 2012). This can seep up to drinking water aquifers that are 1,000 feet below the surface, in three years or less. The waste water / fracking fluid that is recovered

can be radioactive at times and is stored in open pits before it can be removed from the site completely. Fracking wells as a whole are generally poorly built as evident that over a 30 year time span, 60% of them will begin to leak which causes the problems above (Hsieh 2012). Fracking fluids has been found to possess upwards of 600 different chemicals: 25% of these are involved in cancers and other mutations, 37% can affect the hormones in your body, 50% can have adverse effects on your kidneys as well as your nervous, cardiovascular and immune systems, and 75% effected major sensory organs and the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems (Hsieh 2012).

Environmentalists have laid claim for years that fracking is to blame for many different health concerns. According to the work of Dr. M.L Finkel, the process of fracking has become a public health issue that deserves national attention (2013). She stresses that because an extensive study has not yet been done to determine the range of which the dangers extend, it is important that a study be conducted soon. Just because a study has not been done, does not mean that harm is not occurring (Finkel 2013). Many laborers have come forward showing evidence of diseases and cancers which have began to  occur years after the exposure. Seemingly healthy people are building up toxicity in their bodies and will later experience the effects. Rev. Dr. Rachel Mash suggests that a precautionary approach should be used and medical professionals should be included in a conversation with policy makers to find a solution to the problem (2014).

If these claims exist, scientists wonder why more is not being done. The reasons lie in the lack of knowledge presented to the public. In a survey of American adults that was conducted nationally, residents of urban areas and women specifically were shown to have a dissent towards fracking and a want to have more regulations put in place. These regulations include chemical disclosure requirements (to be discussed) and the terms of the agreements in how drilling could be done. Men as a whole however, were seemingly less aware that fracking posed any sort of problem (Davis 2014). The most important finding of the study was that citizens who identified as democrats were the most likely to oppose fracking and even urge for a more staunch stance on the regulations and their increase (Davis 2014). In addition to looking at who opposed fracking, I also looked into the percentage of people that were actually aware of what fracking was. In a survey conducted by US News and World report I found the following data (Figure 7, to the right): in a survey of 1,060 students from the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, 39% of students has never heard of fracking, 16% had heard just “a little” about it, 22% heard “some”, 13% were unaware whether they had or not, and a mere 9% seemed to be familiar with what the process actually was (Handley 2013).  The dangers of fracking must be told to all citizens. Once informed, citizens will

be able to see that fracking affects them and things must be changed.

Seeing the effects that fracking has on human health and my proposed need for tighter regulations. It is important to examine the current laws in regards to fracking. Because water is such an important part of the hydraulic fracturing process, it is crucial to check the laws and regulations regarding water specifically. According to the EPA, the Safe Drinking Water Act focuses on Underground Injection Control which specifically states:  “The term 'underground injection' – (A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and  (B) excludes –  (i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and  (ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities" (EPA 2014). Because of this exclusion, the EPA no longer has any authority to prosecute a company for fracking, even if pollution has been suspected. This is because the EPA claimed from a 2004 study, there was no current connection between contaminated drinking water and the process of fracking.  This loophole is named for the company that was the first to obtain a license for the process: the Halliburton Loophole (Politics 2010). However, it is important to note that in a study that was not funded by the EPA, increased levels of methane, radioactive material and other toxic fracking byproducts had been found in water by the sites of the fracking well. This can lead to tap water that is flammable,because of the methane that seeps up and into the drinking water supply. The EPA then chose to reopen the investigation in 2010 and found a group of chemicals called BTEX that could cause birth defects, cancer and shut down the nervous system (Politics 2010). The exclusion however, has not been rewritten.

The laws above are Federal laws that are imposed on fracking. The allowance of the process of fracking on the other hand, is regulated by individual states (Warner 2013). The states are more easily influenced by companies, by promises of funding for programs. Because fracking has become more popular, the governing bodies within cities or towns have tried to create more strict rules about the fracking in their areas but have been ultimately shut down by the state. Political and environmental activists have tried going to court; one of the issues they want to address is the disposal of wastes from one state into another state that may or not oppose fracking (Warner 2013). Many states have opted to put a Fracking Disclosure Law in place, this makes it illegal for companies to use fracking chemicals without telling  of the what they are (Fisk 2013).

President Obama is facing problems in regards to fracking policies. Fracking is producing natural gas, which we need, because fuels such as crude oil are becoming tougher to get. The free natural gas obtained by fracking provides a cheaper alternative. The environmental calamities that occur as a byproduct (discussed in section II) by leakage from shabbily built pipes and wells as well as cracks from extraction (discussed in section I), make it difficult for the President to move to a type of energy like this (Biello 2012). Theoretically this process could be safe, but not as it currently stands. Power plants that emit a lot of CO2 into the world are those that majorly utilize coal as their energy source. This in it of itself is a problem. Obama reacted by mandating a decrease in these emissions for all types of energy extraction by requiring that the CO2 be deposited underground at a great depth. This poses a problem with fracking because of the methods. When fracking is done, the shale under the ground is cracked allowing the gas to escape. These cracks can travel up and deposit the CO2 into our drinking water. Neither option for energy extraction is safe unless more strict regulations are put in place in regards to structure and contamination.

Debates in Europe are occurring as well.  The debates are more extensive and are actually splitting Europe. Within the European Union, countries are beginning to ban fracking as a whole.  The United Kingdom has the most fracking within Europe, while other countries such as Poland and Denmark are attempting to begin fracking as well. France on the other hand is staunchly against fracking, the President of France, François Hollande, stated “As long as I am president, there will be no exploration for shale gas in France” (Scott 2013). He recognizes the advantages that fracking has for the country economically but cannot allow it in his country because of the proven concerns about the pollutions to the air and water for his citizens (Scott 2013). Because of these debates, the European Union is allowing each country to determine its own policies on fracking, whatever they may be, but the debates still rage on because of the proximity of one country to another.

Protesters have begun to be heard. In Balcombe, England, residents hear fracking machinery turned on full blast and hear the anger in the words of anti-fracking protesters nearby. The activists have built a camp and have signs that say “frack is whack,” “don’t frack our water,” “no fracking way” etc. (Scott 2013). These activists, like others in the United States, have become increasingly concerned with the adverse environmental effects of fracking, such as seismic activity events and water pollution. The pollution is due to the pumping of chemicals underground that open cracks, or fractures and allow the gas to escape (Scott 2013).

These protestors have voiced their opinions. Based on this and the actual dangers of extracting free natural gas from shale, scientists have been prompted to explore new sources of energy.  These include, but are not limited to, hydroelectric energy, wind and solar power, biodiesels, and geothermal power. Cape Cod in Massachusetts prides itself as being “America’s first offshore wind farm.”  The winds from the Cape will be able to give the region about 75% of its energy with no negative aspect to the community besides the possibility of an eye sore for the residents looking out on to the ocean (Cape Wind 2014). This environmentally clean energy source will allow a reduction in other methods of energy extraction, like fracking, as well as reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel usage. The time to look for alternative energies on a large scale has reached an even greater level of need.

Everyone is affected by the poor fracking practices. Informing a community of the danger of fracking is the first step in effecting a change. Communities must come together as a whole and voice their opinions on their safety and they must have policy makers hear them. The communities or even states must affect national attention and protest and petition for tighter regulations on fracking. Because sadly, the process although harmful, is efficient and is unlikely to disappear entirely. Cities such as Boulder, Colorado are fighting for a ban on fracking, they have succeeded and are pushing for other cities to do the same (Biello 2014). US representative Jared Polis started by collecting signatures on a ballot that would allow cities and towns their own rights to say if fracking was illegal or legal within their city limits, independent of the state’s laws which is resided in. He also pushed for a zone of 600 meters between residences and rigs for drilling (Biello 2014). He is being fought by fellow representatives and faces a long haul of work. It is our job as humans to protect the earth that we call our homes and we can all help by starting to make noise about the dangers of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Other states with similar issues are: (1) New York, which is going to ban fracking depending on the results of a health review, (2) North Dakota, which is trying to reap the gains of fracking but also trying to diminish its negative effects, (3) North Carolina, which is attempting to distinguish which regulations are applicable in their state, (4) Pennsylvania, which has decided their current regulations are too lenient and must be increased, and (5) Ohio, which pushes to keep fracking and create and impose taxes on the companies to fund their schools, etc (Biello 2014). The debate is everywhere and tighter regulations are a current hot topic.

Biophysicist Michael Fox, from Colorado State University says, “while there are certainly problems from fracking…, I believe these can be dealt with if proper regulations are enforced. …” (Biello 2014). Tighter regulations are the answer that can make everyone happy, if followed correctly. Citizens and laborers can keep their health, while oil companies and states can make their money. The science says it is possible if pipes are reinforced correctly, chemicals are disposed of properly, and any leaks are repaired immediately. But even with this possible fix, fracking is surely going to be “an issue that exposes political fault lines for years to come” (Biello 2014).

Conclusion: In retrospect, hydraulic fracking for oil and natural gas has sparked numerous

debates and disputes between governments and independent oil companies. The variety

of concerning consequences on the environment, animals and plant ecosystems alike are forcing both the public and  government leaders to question what can be done.

Fracking has always been a dangerous technique, from its origins of pouring nitroglycerin down wells, to its modernized strategy of perforating guns, it has overlooked safety throughout its life. Nothing has changed in recent times, every decision made in fracking is negligent to its surroundings. The disconcern for methane contamination of drinking water,  proppant being left in a well to soak into the Earth and buying low grade concrete are all examples of fracking methods being solely focused on money and leaving the environment to suffer. The environmental ramifications that crude oil and shale gas have, cannot go unnoticed. The volatile organic compounds released into ecosystems from oil spills, leaks and gas contaminations, will undoubtedly find their way onto the plumage, skin, and fur of living organisms, as well as into their physiological systems. This will lead to a general decline in overall health but in many cases will cause cancers and even premature mortality in individual organisms. Unless the fracking methods are amended, the Earth can, and will see a recession in species richness and an increased prevalence in terrestrial, aerial and aquatic pollution.

There are commonalities in the laws regarding fracking within the United States and within Europe. Because of this, it is no surprise that they are facing similar debates within their borders. Some US states and European countries have succeeded in tightening their regulations while others are still in conflict. President Obama is currently working on pushing forward a law to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from fracking, into the environment. Disclosure laws are becoming mandatory in many places- these should make citizens weary of fracking… the following is a list of chemicals used in the process: Hydrochloric Acid, Glutaraldehyde, Quaternary Ammonium, Chloride, Quaternary Ammonium Chloride, Tetrakis Hydroxymethyl-Phosphonium Sulfate, Ammonium Persulfate, Sodium Chloride, Magnesium Peroxide, Magnesium Oxide, Calcium Chloride, Choline Chloride… to name a FEW (FracFocus 2014). There are relatively few people in the world that know what all of these chemicals are and that is a sign that we should not be ingesting them. The time to change this process is now and with tighter regulations and amplified research, the problem can be fixed.

References:

1. Aidt, M. 2014. Why You Should Be Concerned About "Fracking" [Internet]; c2014 [cited 2014 October/20]. Available from: http://climatesafety.info/why-you-should-be-concerned-about-fracking/ .

2. [AP] The Associated Press.[Internet]. 2010.[updated 2010 May 24; cited 2014 Nov 10]. Available from: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bad_cement_jobs_plague_offshor.html

3. Atkin E. 2014. 2,500 Oklahoma Earthquakes Linked To Fracking, Scientists Say[Internet]thinkprogess.org;[updated 2014 July 7;Cited 2014 Nov 10] Available from: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/07/3456931/oklahoma-frackquakes/

4. Bergeron C, Olin J, Woltman S. 2014. Effects of Oil on Terrestrial Vertebrates: Predicting Impacts . BioScience (64) [Print]. [2014 Sept , cited 2014 Oct 18] 64(9):820-829.

5. Biello D. 2014. Fracking Threatens to Crack Politics [Internet]: Scientific American; c2014 [cited 2014 11/9]. Available from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-threatens-to-crack-politics/?WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20141106 .

6. Biello D. 2013. Obama's fracking dilemma. Sci Am 309(5):25-.

7. Cape Wind. 2014. Cape Wind: Americas First Offshore Windfarm, c2014. Available from: http://www.capewind.org/

8. Chindah A, Braide S, Amakiri J. 2011. Effect of Crude Oil on the Development of White Mangrove Seedlings. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies [print]. [cited 2014 Oct 18] 20(2): 275-284.

9. Coleman J. Colorado Fracking Companies Admit to major Air Pollution Problem, Emissions Rules Proposed[Internet]greenpeaceblogs.org[update 2013Nov 19;Cited 2014 Nov 10] Available from: http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/11/19/colorado-fracking-companies-admit-to-major-air-pollution-problem-emissions-rules-propose

10. Davis C and Fisk JM. 2014. Energy abundance or environmental worries? analyzing public support for fracking in the united states. Review of Policy Research 31(1):1-16.

11. [EPA] Environmental protection Agency[Internet].1994. Directional Drilling Technology. Washington DC(US): Environmental protection Agency: Available from: http://www.epa.gov/coalbed/docs/dir-drilling.pdf

12. [EPA] Environmental protection Agency[Internet].2004. Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, Final Report:Washington DC(US) Environmental protection Agency: Available from: http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/owrccatalog.nsf/9da204a4b4406ef885256ae0007a79c7/cf6d51a94783718f85256ebb004beed9!OpenDocument

13. [EPA] Environmental protection Agency[Internet].2009. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States A Primer: Washington DC(US) Ground Water Protection Council: Available from: http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/Shale%20Gas%20Primer%202009.pdf

14. Fabien F, Machado B, Cros C. 2010. Crude Oil Impairs Cardiac Excitation-Contraction Coupling in Fish. Highwire Press American Association for the Advancement of Science (34) [Internet]. [cited 19 Oct 2014] 772-776.

15. Finkel ML and Hays J. 2013. The implications of unconventional drilling for natural gas: A global public health concern. Public Health 127(10):889-93.

16. Fisk JM. 2013. The right to know? state politics of fracking disclosure. Review of Policy Research 30(4):345-65.

17. Geology[Internet].Geology;[cited 2014 Nov 10] Available from:http://geology.com/royalty/production-decline.shtml

18. Goldenberg S. 2014. Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas, report shows[Internet].London(Uk): theguardian.com;[updated 2014 Feb 5; cited 2014 Nov 10]. Available from:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/fracking-water-america-drought-oil-gas

19. Handley M. 2013. Survey: Many Americans Don't Know what Fracking Is [Internet]. Internet: US News and World Report; Last Updated, 2013 [cited Accessed, 2014 November 9]. Available from:http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/29/survey-many-americans-dont-know-what-fracking-is

20. Holzman D. 2011. Methane Found in Well Water Near Fracking Sites. Environmental Health Perspectives [Internet]. [2011 Jul 1, cited 16 Oct 20141] 119(7): 289. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222989/

21. Hsieh S and Royte E. 2012. Fracking our food supply. The Nation: .

22. [IHS] Global Insight.[internet]. 2009.Lexington MA(US) American Petroleum Institute. [Updated 2009; cited 2014 Nov 11]. Available from : C:\Users\liam\Downloads\CSE Citation Style - Quick Guide.pdf

23. Inarconda J, Gardner L, Linbo T. 2014.   Deepwater Horizon crude oil impacts the developing hearts of large predatory pelagic fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (3rd) [Internet]. [ cited 18 Oct 2014] 111(15):1510-1518.

24. Jackson R, Brooks  R, Osborn S. 2011. Research and Policy Recommendations for Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale‐Gas Extraction. Center on Global Change [Print]. [cited 2014 Oct 18]

25. LaLanne C, Gouriou V, Hemery G. 2007. Estimating actual Seabirds Mortality at Sea and Relationship with Oil Spills. Ardreola [print]. [ cited 2014 Oct 20] 54(2):289-307.

26. Law B, Spencer C. 1993. Gas in Tight Reservoirs - an Emerging Major Source of Energy. The Future of Energy Gasses (**Edition**) [Print]. [cited 2014 Oct 22] United States Geological Survey. Pg. 233-252

27. Lewis M, Pryor R. 2013. Toxicities of oils, dispersants and dispersed oils to algae and aquatic plants. Environmental Pollution [Internet]. [cited 2014 Oct 18] Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113002352#

28. Lutcavage M, Lutz P, Bossart G. 1995. Physiological and Clinicopathological Effects of Crude-Oil on Loggerhead Sea-Turtles. Archive of Environmental Toxicology [Internet]. [cited 18 Oct 2014] 28(4):417-422.

29. Lutz P, Musick J. 1996. The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume 1 [print]. 1.

30. Mash R, Minnaar J, Mash B. 2014. Health and fracking: Should the medical profession be concerned? Samj South African Medical Journal 104(5):332-U3245.

31. McCoy, Margaret A and Judith P. Salerno " Front Matter ." Assessing the Effects of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill on Human Health: A Summary of the June 2010 Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010 .

32. Ober H. 2013. Effects of Oil Spills on Marine and Coastal Wildlife. University of Florida IFAS [Internet]. [2013, cited 14 Oct 2014]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw330

33. Oros R, Ross R, Spies R. 2006. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination in San Francisco Bay: A 10-year retrospective of monitoring in an urbanized estuary. Environmental Research [Internet]. [cited 2014 Oct 15`] 105(1):101-118. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935106002337

34. Osborn, S. G., Vengosh A, Warner N. R., and Jackson R. B. Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing[Internet]. [cited 2014 Nov 10] 108.20 (2011): 8172-176. Available from https://nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/pnas2011.pdf

35. Politics P. 2011. Fracking: Economic Boom or Environmental Danger? [Internet]; c2011 [cited 2014 October/20]. Available from: http://politicsandpolicy.org/article/fracking-economic-boom-or-environmental-danger .

36. Ramsey N.2014. New Study Links Oklahoma earthquakes to fracking[Internet]msnbc.com[updated 2014 July 8;Cited 2014 Nov 10] available from:http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/oklahoma-earthquakes-linked-fracking-study

37. Reudenrich C. and Strickland J. 2001.How Oil Drilling Works[Internet] howstuffworks.com.[updated 2001 12 April' Cited 2014 Nov 10] available from: <http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-drilling.htm>

38. Scott A. 2013. Fracking debate splits europe. Chemical & Engineering News 91(35):28-30.

39. Votier S, Birkhead T, McCleery R. 2008. Recruitment and survival of immature seabirds in relation to oil spills and climate variability. Journal of Animal Ecology [print]. [2008, cited 2014 Oct 19] (77):974-983.

40. Warner B and Shapiro J. 2013. Fractured, fragmented federalism: A study in fracking regulatory policy. Publius-the Journal of Federalism 43(3):474-96.

41. Wells B. 2014a. Shooters – A “Fracking” History [Internet]. Washington DC (US): aoghs.org;[ updated 2014;cited 2014 Nov 10] Available from http://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/

42. Wells B. 2014b. Downhole Bazooka[Internet]. Washington DC (US): aoghs.org;[updated 2014;cited 2014 Nov 10] Available from: http://aoghs.org/technology/downhole-bazooka/

43. What Chemicals are Used [Internet]: FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry; Last Updated, 2014 [cited Accessed, 2014 November 10]. Available from: https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used .