Hydrofracking Research Paper

Throughout the centuries, humans have been attempting to find a way to power homes, cars, and other luxuries in the most efficient way possible. Coal and oil were two major sources that begin being exploited during the industrial revolution. Both have caused great controversy over the years from lawsuits to strikes. A new way to drill oil, hydraulic fracturing, was discovered and was an efficient means of drilling until its effects became prevalent. Also, when coal began to run out, a new method called mountaintop removal took hold, but continues to damage the earth. Ethical decisions are made every day in these industries. The question becomes, what is more important: making energy, making money, or a safe environment? In these two cases it

Water contamination is one of the most well-known risks caused by hydrofracking, most likely because water is one of the key components of this process. “Each well uses between two and five million gallons of locally-sourced freshwater which will be permanently contaminated” by the toxic chemicals placed into the water during fracking (Fracking: The Dangers). Some of the water returns to earth’s surface and is stored above ground in steel casks. It is finally inserted deep into the ground into “waste wells” (Fracking: The Dangers). Unaccounted water that is not put into waste wells may stay underground; however, its chemicals can make their way into the water supply of the surrounding areas which causes contamination. Hydrofracking causes fissures, which can allow harmful gases, radioactive material, and chemicals to escape underground as well (Hoffman). The impact of hydrofracking on water sources is not just a problem in theory. For example, it was confirmed by the Environmental Protection Agency that the residents of Pavillion, Wyoming have “contaminated ground water” caused by fracking operations in that area (Hoffman). Wyoming is not the only state to report contamination, as at least 8 others have reported impacted water as well (Fracking: The Dangers). Hydraulic fracturing’s overuse of water as well as the risk for groundwater contamination begs the question of why this method is

This began to cause controversy when a veteran scientist whistleblower, Weston Wilson, called the study “scientifically unsound” (The Halliburton Loophole). Wilson encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a new study which did not involve the opinions of members of the hydrofracking industry so it would hopefully be non-biased (the Halliburton Loophole). While the integration of the hydrofracking industry into the Safe water Drinking Act appeared to be a good thing for regulating the industry, there is still a long way to go when it comes to actually controlling what is injected into the ground and its