Friday, April 27, 2012


Jacob Talley
Mellisa Tetterton
English 1200-081
27 April 2012
What the Frack is Going On?
In the past decade, efforts to find new alternatives for the United States current usage of carbon dioxide-emitting fuel sources have increased.  The possible destruction of our o-zone layer and the threat of altering the climate drive a desire to save the planet from the possible repercussions of global warming and have scientists and researchers working hard to figure out more innovative ideas to make the U.S. a “greener” country.  One method in particular, hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has been a big hit throughout the country.  Hydraulic fracturing has gained popularity around the country by offering several positive economic gains including enhancing job availability, boosting the economy, and improving the health of the environment and by infamously attracting copious amounts of negative publicity in the form of contaminated drinking water, natural disasters, and air pollution that could cause numerous harmful diseases and breathing ailments.
            Hydraulic fracturing is the process of pumping thousands of gallons of a mixture of water, sand and chemicals as far as 10,000 feet below the earth’s surface to the Marcellus Shale layer.  The pressure of this mixture fractures the shale by making tiny cracks.  The sand particles then hold the cracks open as the natural gas flows back up the pump and is collected by the company that is running the drill site (ProPublica).  Fracking enthusiasts support the process because of the potential it brings to drastically improve the environment by reducing our emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse agents, decrease our country’s dependence on foreign oil, and provide job opportunities to a struggling economy.
Hydraulic fracturing provides an alternative fuel source that can cut down CO2 emissions as well as other greenhouse pollutants in the United States.  By decreasing these greenhouse gases, we can quickly turn our global warming issue around in a positive way and prevent further damage to the environment caused by the increasing global temperature.  At the very least, it provides scientists with extra time to discover an affordable method of cutting out greenhouse gases all together.  Methane is a greenhouse gas emitted from natural gas that is also many times more heat-trapping than CO2.  However, the volume of CO2 is enormous in the U.S. as it makes up 81.3% of all greenhouse emissions.  The rate is only 1.1% for methane compared to 8.5% based on the global warming potential.  Natural gas burns 30% less CO2 than oil and 45% less than coal.  Converting to natural gas would greatly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because it is so much cleaner burning than our current methods of energy production (Natural Gas).  By doing this, the air quality would increase drastically and provide several health benefits that include healthier lungs and airways. 
            Smog is yet another environmental issue that plagues the big cities in the United States.  Smog along with ground level o-zone can contribute to ailments ranging from temporary discomfort while breathing to permanent damage to the lungs.  Natural gas does virtually nothing to contribute to smog because it releases very low levels of smog causing agents such as nitrous oxides and particulate matter.  It produces 90% less particulates than oil and 99% less than coal.  The integration of natural gas usage into public systems such as electrical generation, transportation, and industrial use would greatly reduce amounts of smog in the country; especially in the summer when natural gas is cheap and amounts of smog are normally great because of the heat.  Acid rain, which is caused by a combination of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides and water vapor, would be greatly reduced by replacing coal burning plants with natural gas burning plants.  Natural gas emits barely any SO2 and 80% less nitrous oxides than coal (Natural Gas).  By switching to natural gas as a fuel source, the amount of smog in areas of heavy population would sharply decrease and the rates of disease and cancer associated with smog would decrease as well.  By doing this, the health of the community is affected in an entirely positive way that makes living conditions better.
            Transportation and industrial uses of greenhouse emitting fuel sources are the largest contributors to air pollution in the U.S.  A switch to natural gas would significantly lower the amount of toxic pollutants being released.  Due to the increased presence of hydraulic fracturing sites, enough natural gas can be harvested to support our energy needs and improve the environment by reducing many of the harmful pollutants being released today.  In particular, switching from the current use of diesel and gasoline to natural gas for motorized vehicles would decrease the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) and CO2 by 97% and 25% respectively.  The switch would also decrease nitrous oxide production by 60% and other non-methane hydrocarbons by 75% (Natural Gas).  The switch would lead to limiting the damage done by humans to the environment and a big dip in gasoline usage, which would elongate our current supply of fuel and natural resources as a whole.  It would make the U.S. a much more energy efficient and cleaner environmental country.
Not only will fracking clean up the United States environment, it will also reduce our need for foreign oil.  In 2005, petroleum consumption peaked in the U.S. at over 20 million barrels a day.  Since then, due to the success of fracking and other methods, that rate has decreased to 11.8 as of 2010.  Because of the shift from petroleum to alternative fuels taking place, consumption rates and the dependence on foreign eastern hemisphere countries have declined.  Of our net imports, 49 percent come from countries in the western hemisphere, which includes all of North America, South America, and U.S. territories in the Caribbean (EIA).  As the demand for crude oil and petroleum fuel continues to decrease, so will the cost of gasoline, which would help many citizens financially in the process that struggle with the current high fuel costs.  Suddenly, families have a bit more financial wiggle room and can go out and spend more money on leisure activities and simultaneously stimulating the economy in the process.  This will help lead to the end and eventual reversal of the current recession.
            In addition to lowering the country’s dependency on foreign imports, the natural gas industry has stimulated the economy by providing 9.2 million people with jobs of the advanced variety (Energy Tomorrow).  Major companies such as Exxon Mobil and independents such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy, and Anadarko contribute many of the new job opportunities (Kusnetz).  If the oil and natural gas industry was granted access to states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, the development of the Marcellus Shale could cause over one million job opportunities to become available by 2020.  $176 billion have been distributed by the industry in the form of wages to U.S. employees that work in positions such as engineers and geologists and even unexpected occupations such as zoologists and veterinarians.  The industry has also supported the government through paying leases and royalties for production.  These rents have totaled over $100 billion since 2000 (Energy Tomorrow).  This provides a huge boost in the economy to help combat the current recession.
            While there are many great outcomes to be gained by utilizing hydraulic fracturing, the supporters of the practice are met with just as many people that think negatively of the activity.  Those that are against drilling for natural gas claim that fracking causes more air pollution, is responsible for some natural disasters, and that it contaminates drinking water.  While fracking enthusiasts praise natural gas for being able to make the United States a more eco-friendly country, there are those who oppose the industry in itself for doing the exact opposite and harming the environment.  Environmentalists in states like Wyoming, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado have been complaining of the air pollution that the drill sites are causing.  The gases from the well escape from the storage tanks, pipelines and other equipment, and during the drilling process itself.  Environmental regulators in a small rural town in Texas found high levels of benzene, a cancer-causing agent, and claimed that the problem stemmed from all of the drill locations and fuel rigs in the community (Cappiello).  Environment advocates in the Chesapeake Bay area of Virginia videotaped several drill locations with infrared imaging and found that they were not properly managing the sites (Associated Press).  Levels of ground-level ozone were found in the Upper Green River Basin in western Wyoming that exceeded those in other bigger smoggier cities.  In 2009 the environmentalists sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force them to take action in investigating and monitoring the sites for the harmful emissions that were not being controlled.  The EPA responded by placing regulations on hydraulic fracturing that would halt the release of soot and smog-causing pollutants.  Guidelines were also given for better management of containment and other equipment to reduce the amount of leaked gas.  These rules are designed in such a way that actually helps the company save about $30 million every year by selling the gas they collect (Cappiello).  Though the environmentalist have fought and won for tighter regulations, no actual environmental issue has been directly linked to hydraulic fracturing.  Only the management of the sights has come under scrutiny.  The drive to find an alternative fuel source has stifled efforts to ban the practice that provides the new fuel source.
            Citizens who live in areas of heavy drilling have not only had trouble with pollutants, but they have also been faced with extreme adverse environmental effects.  Several regions that are being fracked have reported many occurrences of earthquakes and the blame is pointed squarely at natural gas drillers.  When the millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals hit the shale it blasts cracks in the rock layer and brings in the potential occurrences of earthquakes.  Incidents of fracking-related earthquakes have surfaced in several states including Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas and more.  Braxton County of West Virginia has had eight quakes in 2010 alone (RT).  Due to the vast amount of pump locations in Ohio, the county of Mahoning has experienced 11 unexpected tremors in the last eight months.  All of which occurred just two miles from the drilling region (Downing).  Virginia has had the oddest occurrence of quakes however.  Dominion Power calculated that there would be roughly five events of a 5.5 or higher quake hitting central Virginia in the next 10,000 years.  A 5.8 hit the community in August that shook the entire east coast (RT).  Arkansas, by far, has had a ridiculous 1,000 earthquakes allegedly related to hydraulic fracturing.  Researchers have shut down the operations of two natural gas drilling companies in order to investigate whether or not it has been caused by the actions of the drill sites.  Since the companies have gone offline, seismic activity has reduced in the region, but random tremors have still popped up across the state (Eddington).  There has been extensive investigative research done on the shakes in relation to the drilling operations, yet no definite connections between the two have been discovered.  As much as it seems who the obvious culprit is behind the occurrences, the lack of proof keeps drilling locations up and running.  Without the proper proof, drill sites in other parts of the country will stay open and continue drilling for the energy that our government puts a high priority on. 
            As many cases of natural disasters and air pollution that have been reported, even more water contamination stories have surfaced as a result of hydraulic fracturing.  In 2005, as a part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress excluded hydraulic fracturing from the list of industries that had to comply with Safe Drinking Water Act.  This meant that drilling companies did not have to disclose the exact mixture of chemicals to the public and that the EPA was not allowed to investigate them.  However, in May 2011 President Obama formed the Natural Gas Subcommittee on the Safety of Shale Gas Development.  The team, led by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, works with the EPA and other agencies to make guidelines that ensure the fracking operations are well maintained and environmentally safe (Randle).  High levels of arsenic, glycols, and barium were found in drinking water wells in Pennsylvania in 2009.  The EPA charged Cabot Oil & Gas with several violations and ordered the company to provide homes with fresh drinking water (Lustgarten).  Officials also found that waste water from the pumping in New York was being disposed of in sewage treatment plants.  This operation not only posed a danger for drinking water safety, but also the safety of the workers (Sapien).  In 2009 residents of Pavillion, Wyoming reported that their drinking water had an oily sheen, petroleum odor, and an abnormal coloration.  The EPA quickly came in and began investigating in March of 2009.  Many chemicals were found in many wells such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, methane and 2-butoxyethanol, which is a known hydraulic fracturing fluid.  It was also discovered that waste water was disposed of in the Wind River Formation, which is an Underground Source of Drinking Water by definition under the United States Code of Federal Regulations.  However, because of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the EPA could take no disciplinary action (Johnson).  Although numerous amounts of evidence towards contamination were discovered, the investigation ended, yet again, with no direct connection between the pollution of the water wells and hydraulic fracturing.  After all of the leads and investigative work done on fracking, the process remains just as strong as it did the day it started since no evidence has linked fracking to any wrong doing directly.
            There is no doubt that there is certainly evidence of fracking leading to environmental issues such as water and air pollution and earthquakes.  Government has attempted to regulate it by forming subcommittee to find the safest method possible for these operations and to prevent the incidents that have been reported.  However, until there is a direct link from natural gas drilling to harmful effects on the environment, hydraulic fracturing will continue.  The efforts put forth by our government are extremely important in determining the safety of fracking.  The increased federal focus on the issue will make the process safer and allow us to obtain more natural gas to help our countries energy need and consumption.  Doing so will tremendously help out both our economy and environment.
            Hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new and exciting mystery for our country.  It could help fix an environment that has been ravaged by previous poor decisions, diminish our dependence on foreign fuel sources, and create millions of jobs for our struggling economy.  This would push the U.S. in a very positive direction and put us in a good position to improve our economic and environmental situation.  At the same time, this seemingly wonderful method could also be damaging the air quality, causing strange earthquakes, and making drinking water dangerous to consume.  However, the lack of evidence linking these consequences to hydraulic fracturing has prevented any official action being taken to prevent it.  Until there is quality evidence against natural gas drilling, companies will just continue to frack on and the United States will continue to reap the benefits and possibly suffer from its consequences.
                                                                                                                          
           
            

Jacob Talley
ENGL 1200-081
Mellisa Tetterton
27 April 2012
Cover Letter
            For my fourth and final project, I chose to revise the first project, the rhetorical analysis.  I made several changes to my paper that I believe made it a stronger read.  Besides all of the minor grammar and punctuating corrections, I worked to improve the amount of detail given in my thesis.  I went further into detail what the positive and negative effects of hydraulic fracturing would be and I think that it lures the reader in a bit more because it tells them what they are about to read.  I also worked to add more explanations and detail to my transitions between paragraphs.  I believe this helps the paper flow better than did previously.  It also tightens up a few loose ends in regards to detail that I left out last time.  I also joined a couple of paragraphs together to make it a stronger paragraph as a whole and worked to better wrap up my information in the conclusion.
            After enrolling in this course and learning better quality writing techniques, I read my original project and could not help but wonder what I was thinking.  My thoughts were unorganized and I left out many key details several times.  I feel as though this course has made me a much stronger informative writer.  I feel like I now process my thoughts better and can translate them more efficiently to the paper.  This course has helped me grasp the concept of ethos, which is a crucial part in any type of writing you do.  I am more confident in my ability to produce a quality work and understand the topic at hand when it comes to a writing assignment.  I am definitely a different writer now than when I was at the beginning of the semester and the techniques I have learned will stay with me through the rest of my college career.  I now feel like my papers will be cleaner, more informative and easier to read as a result of my education in English 1200.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012


Jacob Talley
21 March 2012
English 1200-81
Mellisa Tetterton
Annotated Bibliography
Banerjee, Neela. "Study: 'Fracking' May Increase Air Pollution Health Risks." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-fracking-increases-air-pollution-health-risks-to-residents-20120320,0,7159850.story>.
            A three year study conducted by the Colorado School of Public Health confirmed that many toxic hydrocarbons were being released by hydraulic fracturing sites. These chemicals could lead to a variety of acute and chronic health concerns including leukemia.  The Environmental Protection Agency is looking to make regulations to limit the harmful effects. 
Holmes, David, Andrew Bean, Neil Bekker, Lisa Rucker, and Adam Sakellarides. "My Water's On Fire Tonight." Youtube. Studio 20 NYU, 12 May 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLDAD4DD6D0E333772&feature=player_detailpage&v=oHQu3SeUwUI>.
            This video was made to inform the viewers of the hydraulic fracturing controversy including its brief history and the benefits from the process. It also gives information about the many harmful side effects from doing it.  It has an overall unsupportive attitude toward hydraulic fracturing as it mostly tries to warn the public of the potential harm it could cause.
Morrissey, Ed. "Video: Reason Asks, What the Frack Is Going On?" HotAir.com. Reason TV, 28 June 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/28/video-reason-asks-what-the-frack-is-going-on/>.
            This article provides a video interview to Ronald Bailey in response to “The Fracking Song.”  Bailey ensures that the technology is safe because it is over 60 years old and that the only thing to blame is the poorly built sites by some of the corporations.  He is supportive of hydraulic fracturing as he emphasizes the many benefits that come from it and downplays the harmful side effects.
Tracy, Ryan. "Drillers Face Methane Concern." The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 26 Sept. 2011. Web. 16 Mar. 2012. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903374004576583041824518766.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth>.
            This article addresses the concerns of Sherry Vargson and many other affected citizens of Pennsylvania that have been harmed by water pollution due to hydraulic fracturing.  Companies responsible for the damage have paid compensation to the families and offered solutions to prove that the damage is indeed not their fault.
Leitsinger, Miranda. "Fracking Waste Led to Earthquakes, Ohio Says in Adding New Rules. “U.S. News. Msnbc.com, 9 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10625517-fracking-waste-led-to-earthquakes-ohio-says-in-adding-new-rules>.
Ohio has been the subject of a dozen earthquakes that are believed to be caused by hydraulic fracturing sites that force waste water back down into the earth.  The earthquakes had occurred only after drill sites were installed in various areas of the state and scientists have confirmed that the earthquakes could be caused by fracking, which only solidifies the citizens’ claims.
BusinessGreen Staff. "EPA Proposes Crackdown on Fracking Air Pollution." BusinessGreen. BusinessGreen, 29 July 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. <http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2097895/epa-proposes-crackdown-fracking-air-pollution>.
            The Environmental Protection Agency takes aim at hydraulic fracturing to hammer down some steep regulations to help control the release of harmful air pollutants.  These regulations are to affect the quality of equipment as well as assuring that waste is properly disposed of.  It is yet another way that the government is trying to hold on to a new source of income.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-fracking-increases-air-pollution-health-risks-to-residents-20120320,0,7159850.story

According to a study implemented by the Colorado School of Public Health, hydraulic fracturing can cause acute and chronic health issues to those living within half a mile of a drill site.  The study has been occurring for the last 3 years while monitoring drill locations all over Colorado.  Toxic hydrocarbons were found in the air including benzene, a known carcinogen designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The EPA has also recognized that Garfield County, Colorado is due to see increased drilling activity.

The study revealed several harmful risks that come with the air pollution near the drill sites.  Those living in close vicinity with the drill locations are at risk for basic eye irritation and headaches to leukemia and myeloma.  With the current regulation that requires drill sites to be 150 feet away from homes, citizens of Garfield County are going to be at major risk for developing these harmful ailments.

If there is any study indicating any risk to a population, the plug should be pulled on what ever operation that is responsible for the risk.  The study says that those within a half of a mile to a drill site are at risk and yet the current rule is only 150 feet away from homes.  It is just yet another example of the flawed system that runs the hydraulic fracturing industry.  A simple suspension of all fracking sites must be implemented to give time for the corporations to come together and develop a solution that will fix all the imperfections of the regulations for  the industry.

Monday, March 19, 2012


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10625517-fracking-waste-led-to-earthquakes-ohio-says-in-adding-new-rules

According to an article by Miranda Leitsinger of msnbc.com, there were a dozen earthquakes that struck the Youngstown area of Ohio in 2011.  The quakes, which began in March, all ranged from 2.1 to 4.0 magnitude with the 4.0 quake coming on December 31.  The 4.0 earthquake caused Governor John Kasich to suspend the activity of several waste water wells, who are believed to be the cause of the disturbances.  The water treatment centers are not designed to dispose of some of the contaminants in the waste water from fracking.  As a result, the drillers just re-inject the waste back into the ground.  According to scientists, the re-injection of waste water combined with a few other certain circumstances could cause the earthquakes.  This assumption is reinforced due to the almost obvious timing of the tremors coming a few months after drill sites were established in the area.

As a result of these events, stricter regulations for drilling sites were handed down by the state Department of Natural Resources.  Due to the new regulations, gas companies are required to provide precise geographical information on the area, which include known fault lines in the region.  Drill sites must utilize advanced pressure and volume monitoring devices to keep track of seismic activity.  The Department of Natural Resources also banned further drilling in the affected area of the quakes.

I believe that the regulations set forth by the Department of Natural Resources are a great step in the right direction of making fracking safe.  But I still hold my stance that hydraulic fracturing should be banned all together.  The thought of an earthquake is scary in itself, let alone knowing the cause of it and giving those responsible just a slap on the wrist and a set of new rules.  There should be further punishments handed down by the state for putting the citizens of the area in danger.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_Y812W8xqJzW1WC9TlSQNVxrkyYnOV4c-RbpqKbjm-lJ7lg-XlA

Friday, March 16, 2012



The above photos have not been edited in any way.  What are shown in the photos are different cases where tap water has been ignited by an open flame.  In the article, Sherry Vargson of Granville Summit, Pennsylvania experienced the same problem.  Vargson and the many other citizens of Pennsylvania have blamed this phenomenon on local hydraulic fracturing sites in the state.  They claim that the methane that is being leaked into the drinking water wells are from poorly maintained drill sites and the companies responsible for them have come under certain scrutiny.

Two companies, Chesapeake Energy and Cabot Oil & Gas, have each had to pay large sums of money to 35 different households that have been affected by the methane contamination.  In their defense, however, they claim that the area always had a problem with methane leaks and the company’s drilling sites are not to blame.  In order to prove that they are not to blame, companies have altered the cement mixture used to make the casing and also added a steel pipe around the casing to further prevent gas leaks.  By making these changes to the drill sites, companies such as Chesapeake and Cabot hope to shake the blame that is plaguing their reputation.

The fines set forth on these companies were not enough in my opinion.  $5 million is simply not enough to pay over 30 homes for poisoning the water supply.  It puts the families’ health in great danger by releasing toxic chemicals into the drinking water and that is not something that can simply be paid off.  The citizens of these small towns should come together to make sure that natural gas drill sites are eliminated from the land.  The citizens at least owe it to themselves to make a change happen and make it happen soon to avoid further damage.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/28/video-reason-asks-what-the-frack-is-going-on/

In this video, Reason TV's Nick Gillespie interviews science correspondent Ronald Bailey about the hydraulic fracturing controversy.  Bailey offers his take on the situation and offers explanations on the real problems with the method of gas drilling.  He provides insight on the many questions that skeptics have asked and gives counter statements on the claims that many critics of fracking have given.

Bailey claims that the technology used in hydraulic fracturing is over 60 years old and believes that there is nothing wrong with the current method of drilling.  He backs this up with the fact that over 100,000 wells are dug each year in the United States.  Bailey blames the contamination of water wells on the poor construction of some drill sites.  He says that the cement casing of the channels that force the water, sand and chemicals into the ground are to blame for the pollution.  Bailey believes that this should not be enough to totally shut down the wells and that the benefits of fracking should override critics claims that it is unsafe.

Whether or not the cement casings are to blame, the dig sites should be shut down for the greater good of the environment.  Even if there is one thing that is a weak point in the technology of fracking, the technology is flawed.  There is no way that someone can say that the technology is fine when there a incidents where water wells, that supply humans with drinking water, are being contaminated with harmful pollutants such as benzene and formaldehyde.  No matter how old the technology is, if people are being negatively affected by it, then there is obviously a flaw somewhere.