Deleon 1

Robert Deleon

English 102

Professor Khanzhina

20 June 2013

From The Ground to Prosperity

I have seen firsthand what poverty can do to a community. People struggle daily to

merely have enough to provide a decent meal for themselves, let alone an entire family. I have

seen men and women lose hope in finding opportunities that would help ease their struggles of

everyday life. In this community, there is no infrastructure, no vitality, or even the slightest hint

of the opportunity they seek. The community has been stagnant and eroding for decades now. I

know this personally, because my wife grew up there. So, what if an opportunity presented itself

to help ease this struggling community, and bring opportunities that they so eagerly seek? One

such opportunity did, and it was in form of hydraulic fracturing. Although many people claim

that hydraulic fracturing should be banned due to its environmental risks, I believe that the

opportunities that hydraulic fracturing brings outweighs the possible potential risks. Though I

will admit that hydraulic fracturing is not the means to an end, it is better than the current non

viable alternative sources for energy.

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has become a highly controversial subject

to many environmentalists and the general public over the last 10 years. So what exactly is

fracking? Fracking is technology that uses highly pressurized fracking fluid that creates fissures

and cracks in shale formations to allow natural gas and oil to be removed on a large scale
 Deleon 2

(Earthworks). The wells are drilled horizontally at an average depth of 5300 feet, and separated

from groundwater aquifers by thousands of feet of protective rock barriers (Hydraulic). And as

of 2011, shale gas and oil wells only consumed about 135 billion gallons of water a year.

Perspectively, that is only 0.3 percent of the total U.S. freshwater consumption per year

(Jenkins). In addition to the ground and surface water that is used, there is fracking fluid that is

used in this system. This fluid is mainly comprised of 99% water and less than 1% of chemical

components (Hydraulic). According to the U.S. Department of Energy:

A wide variety of chemical additives are used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. They

include: dilute acids, biocides, breakers, corrosion inhibitors, crosslinkers, friction

reducers, gels, potassium chloride, oxygen scavengers, pH adjusting agents, scale

inhibitors and surfactants. These chemical additives typically might make up just 1/2 to 2

percent of the fluid. The remaining 98 to 99 1/2 percent of the fluid is water. Proppants

such as sand, aluminum shot or ceramic beads are frequently injected to hold fractures

open after the pressure treatment is completed. (geology)

Most of the chemicals used are found in many common consumer products. The energy

companies involved in the fracturing, post the chemicals for the general public to view.

So why does fracking carry such a negative stigma? Some opponents have argued that

fracking has caused serious injury; even death. some tell stories of drinking water catching on

fire. (Rossen & Powell) however these are weak arguments. Accidents happen all over from non-

fracking technology. Fuel from model airplanes can fall on someone and cause health problems,

but doesn’t end up on the news. Baking flour plants have exploded and killed several people, but

we don’t stop making flour. Natural gas can leak into the water that has nothing to do with
 Deleon 3

fracking and that ends up on the news because your sink water catches on fire. The point being,

all technology and energy production has accidents and fracking being no different. But these

aren’t valid reasons to stop fracking in our country. Steps should be taken within the companies

and legislation to help prevent accidents. But people have been trained and are licensed to drive a

car, yet there are thousands of car accidents daily. Accidents happen, and we should take steps to

prevent them just like we do on the road, but accidents will always happen.

The advancement of this technology has greatly increased the number of wells and land

being drilled for natural oil and gas. The rapid increase has sparked many more potential

environmental and public health risks. One of the major concerns for environmentalists and

activists are the potential risks of water contamination. Not just drinking water, but fresh and

surface water. They claim that the chemical components and methods used to distribute these

chemicals into the ground could allow seepage and promote contamination (Schneider). Another

potential environmental risk on the forefront is the deterioration of air quality. They claim that

the increase of transportation to move the natural gas and oil that is being extracted is greatly

affecting our air quality. Also, the remnants of the fuels that are being burned off are contributing

to greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection Agency is thoroughly studying and

researching the significance of environmental and public health risks that hydraulic fracking

could potentially pose. They are ensuring that safeguards will be in place and enforced to prevent

potential risks from actually posing a real threat. They will issue a definitive report and new

standard operating procedures relating to hydraulic fracturing by the year 2014 (Environmental).

But if you look closely, all the hazards are speculation. EPA still has not released their definitive

report. We have only identified the potential risks, and have no conclusive evidence that these

risks will occur. We should not make a decision like this based on potential risk. Do we not
 Deleon 4

allow the automobile to be made even though it has the potential to kill millions? Do we not

allow nuclear power plants, even though they have the potential to meltdown, and leave an area

uninhabitable for years? Should we continue to drill offshore when we currently know there is a

risk after recent events in the Gulf of Mexico? If you look at all energy technology they all

inherently have risk. I believe we should weigh the potential risks against the considerable

economic and environmental growth that hydraulic fracturing has sparked.

Just in the small community of 3000 people, I have seen firsthand the exponential

benefits that hydraulic fracturing has evoked. Energy companies have brought thousands of job

opportunities and prospects to this once frail economy. There are actually more jobs than they

can fill. The family that was once struggling to put a decent meal on the table is now leasing their

land for more money than they know what to do with. There are new businesses and hotels being

built quickly to accommodate the demand of the growing population. The new businesses and

hotels allow other avenues of economic growth for those who might not be interested or unable

to work directly for the energy companies who are extracting the gas and oil. I know elderly

people who are now supplementing their income by providing cleaning and washing services to

displaced workers. I know teenagers who are now employed and able to help supplement their

family’s income and ease their family struggles. There is job security for this local community

and hydraulic fracturing couldn’t come at a better time. I see the vitality and hope in these

people’s eyes due to the new opportunities that hydraulic fracturing has brought.

On a national level, hydraulic fracturing has also alleviated some concerns and struggles.

Since natural gas burns cleaner than other fuel sources, this will accelerate the efforts to promote

cleaner air for our nation (ANGA). Hydraulic fracturing will also alleviate our dependence on

foreign oil and coal, which both contribute greatly to our greenhouse gasses. The advancement in
 Deleon 5

hydraulic technology has stimulated much of our economy at a time when it is most needed. It

supports 2.8 million jobs in our U.S. economy and if utilized efficiently, it will continue to

stimulate growth (ANGA).

I believe that the negative stigma that hydraulic fracturing has adopted is due to the lack

of knowledge of this technological advancement in hydraulic fracturing. Our nation’s

government should have the best interests of the people, and therefore should emphasize

transparency to the general public. Disclosures should be across the board, and readily available

for all those who could be negatively affected by the potential risks. Texas became the first state

to pass a law requiring all energy companies to disclose all the chemicals involved in the

hydraulic fracturing (McGraw). There is a priority on educating the general and national public

to promote healthy communal ties between communities and the energy companies. In the local

community I spoke of, they hold quarterly town halls to discuss any concerns the public might

have. I also have been told that there are constant mailings from the energy companies to the

local community about any significant events or just general knowledge facts that help to

promote general welfare. They also informed the community on how to access the water analysis

reports that the county provides, and also provides affordable water testing of private wells too.

Let us look at the alternatives for one moment. We currently use fossil fuels because they

provide us with the most efficient, and safe energy solution. Nuclear is by far the most efficient,

but is potentially the most dangerous due to accidents such as Chernobyl. You also have the

problem of the disposing of spent fuel rods. A couple hundred years of keeping those around is

expensive trash. Solar panels are probably the safest; however only provide 10-20 percent

efficiency on a good day, and only during half the day (National). Wind energy is safe, but it

takes 17 acres of land to produce 1 Kilowatt of electricity (California). That’s a lot of land to get
 Deleon 6

very little. Hydroelectric is great if you live by a large enough river, but what about the

ecosystem changes they cause? All of these technologies and other alternative energy resources

should be continued to be researched. These are the future of our energy needs and I will admit is

more appealing for our future. But at this time, they are not a realistic substitute for our current

energy needs, and we need better solutions now. Fracking provides another option from our

dependence on foreign fossil fuels, and unlike the potential benefits of solar, wind, and nuclear;

fracking is here now.

I am relieved to say that I no longer have to worry for the families that have been affected

by hydraulic fracturing in my wife’s local community. The advancement in this technology has

brought the opportunities they so longed for and should be allowed to continue. There is no such

thing as a fool-proof system, but as long as the energy companies and communities continue to

work together, there will be no exploitation and negligence for either one. So, as long as our

national government strengthens oversight and develops contingency plans to prevent and

address potential risks from actually happening, there is hope for a cleaner and resourceful

future.
 Deleon 7

Works Cited

[Link]. “Hydraulic Fracturing 101.” Web. 16 June, 2013.

California Energy Commission. “Overview of Wind Energy in California.”

[Link]/wind/overview. Web. 16 June, 2013.

[Link]. “Hydraulic Fracturing 101.” Web. 16 June, 2013.

[Link]. “Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan.” November 2011.

Web. 16 June, 2013.

[Link]. “Eagle Ford Shale Hydraulic Fracturing Fact Sheet.” May 2012.

Web. 16 June, 2013.

Jenkins, Jesse. “Energy Facts. How Much Water Does Fracking For Shale Gas Consume?”

[Link]., 6 April, 2013. Web. 16 June, 2013.

McGraw, Seamus. “Is Fracking Safe? The Top 10 Controversial Claims About Natural Gas

Drilling.” [Link]., Web. 16 June, 2013.

National Academy of Engineering. “Make solar energy economical.” [Link]

Web. 16 June, 2013.

Rossen, Jeff & Powell, Robert. “Family discovers their tap water is flammable.”

[Link]. 11 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Jun 2013

Schneider, Keith. “To Frack Or Not? Just One Of The Questions.” [Link]., 31

March, 2013. Web. 16 June, 2013.

U.S Department of Energy. “Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States.”

[Link]. Web. 20 June, 2013.