Hydraulic fracturing is a technique applied in the extraction of natural gas from shales. This technique has been used in the Marcellus shale area which cuts across New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The name hydraulic, this process suggests that water is used in its processes. It entails the injection of water that has been mixed with sand and other chemical components at high pressure into bedrock formations through a well. The use of hydraulic fracturing aims at creating new fractures in the rocks, widening the sizes of the fractures, and also enhancing connections to fractures that already exist. This process is, in most cases, applied to less permeable rocks. This includes shale, sandstone, and also coal beds. This process enhances the flow of gases/oil being extracted into wells (Poole, 2013). However, when hydraulic pressure is freed from the wells, the sand that was initially mixed with water for the process, and other disintegrated grains, will remain to hold the fractures to prevent closure. Hydraulic fracturing began back in 1947. It was first carried out as an experiment. However, ever since, it has emerged to be the most common process used in the extraction of natural gas because it usually provides an adequate flow of gases and oil being extracted. This is steered by the fact that it uses high pressure to compress and liquefy the gases. Also, this technique has been extensively used since, in some places, hydraulic fractures can occur naturally in veins and dikes, thus, making it necessary for the hydraulic process to be applied. Water that was injected into fractures usually returns to the surface after the release of pressure in the form of flow backwater. However, the water that will continue with its flow upwards after the completion of a fracture is usually referred to as produced water. Both these types of water are typically tainted by total dissolved solids (TDS), oil, natural radioactive materials (NORM), and also dissolved organic matter (DOM) (Butkovskyi et al., 2018). They are generally referred to as flow back and produced waters (FPW). However, in FPW, heterocyclic biocides, Cocamidopropyl surfactants, ethylene glycol, alkanes, resins, and also asphaltenes were all found present. This implied that the process led to the production of these chemicals, which were used to force the gas out from the shales. Besides, flow back water was treated with Iron (III) chloride to act as a coagulant. Also, sodium hydroxide is required to adjust the pH (Butkovskyi et al., 2018) . After this, ozonation takes place to release gases. Hydrofracking has had several negative implications on the environment. This includes air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, and it triggers earthquakes. Health conditions accompany all these effects. Air pollution is caused by gases like methane, which result in hydrofracking processes. Methane has a high affinity for trapping in the atmosphere as compared to carbon (IV) oxide. This may result in global warming, thus imposing risks to human life. Also, other gases that xylene and toluene are released, therefore leading to respiratory infections. Water pollution arises when flow back water is emptied into water bodies without treatment. This fluid is usually made up of several toxic chemicals that, when directly released into water bodies, results in the death of aquatic life. Also, contamination of water occurs in cases where there have been faulty constructions of wells. This will result in leakages, thus imposing danger to water bodies. On the other hand, soil contamination occurs in cases where there has been oil spillage (Hoffman, 2012) . This will lead to low agricultural yields as air pores that allow air into the soil will be closed up, and also, the living organic matter that aids in soil aeration will have been destroyed. As a result, this has prompted landowners to get furious over hydrofracking in their regions. As a result, they have called upon government bodies and bodies in charge of the environment, for instance, EPA, to put in place proper and safe extraction techniques or else they will not allow extraction to take place on their lands (Vidal, 2015). The significant positive impact of hydrofracking is that it results in greenhouse effects through the production of methane. The greenhouse effect aids in maintaining certain levels of temperature on the Earth's surface, thus, enhancing habitats for living creatures. Also, the greenhouse effect helps in preventing harmful solar radiation from striking the Earth's surface. Moreover, natural gas is replacing coal power. As a result, the depletion of the ozone layer should be expected to reduce since carbon (IV) oxide is the primary gas that results in its destruction. The use of natural gas will imply that the use of coal power will reduce, thus keeping the environment safe from adverse conditions. However, despite hydrofracking having many controversies, landowners have allowed extraction to take place at their lands only when the technique is implemented safely to prevent an environmental crisis. Moreover, industries have continued to ensure that extraction constructions are made safely to avoid any leakages. As a result, industries have urged landowners not to worry about the extractions. EPA has the power to limit the emission of pollutants that are released from fracking processes. EPA has urged fracking companies to maintain a safe drinking water act, clean water act, clean air act, resource conservations act, and also the national environmental policy act. In this case, EPA can make decisions on these policies if the fracking industries violate them. In a 2015 report, EPA claimed that fracking processes could impact water drinking sources, thus imposing danger to lives. As a result, EPA called for awareness in all fracking companies to ensure safe, natural gas extractions. Conclusively, the fracking process is a process that has both advantages and disadvantages to the environment. In many cases, its negative impacts on the environment can be controlled and prevented to ensure that they only yield benefits to the environment. Moreover, this process requires enough human labor and capital for it to be a success and not to impose any dangers to the environment. However, several measures can be taken to create awareness of the possible negative implications of this technique and how to deal with them. This can be done through billboard advertisements, google ads, and also through conducting studies in areas in which hydraulic fracturing takes place. This will enable the public to be aware of the pros and cons of these processes, and therefore it will allow landowners to determine whether to allow their lands to be used for extractions or not.
References
Butkovskyi, A., Faber, A.-H., Wang, Y., Grolle, K., Hofman-Cris, R., Bruning, H., Rijnaarts, H. H. (2018). Removal of organic compounds from shale gas flowback water. Water Research , 47-55.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hoffman, J. (2012). Geology and Human Health . Retrieved from Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana: https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html
Poole, H. (2013). OLR RESEARCH REPORT . Retrieved from STATE POLICIES ON USE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING WASTE AS A ROAD DEICER: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0469.htm
Vidal, J. (2015, July 17). The Guardian . Retrieved from Beware permitting fracking, says farmer who allowed coal methane borehole: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/17/dont-allow-fracking-farmer-allowed-coal-methane-borehole.
