This is the process by which natural gas, petroleum, and brine among other hydrocarbons, are stimulated to flow freely toward the surface by causing fractures in rocks using pressurized fluid. The process exploits the use of fluid pressure as was invented by Floyd Farris and Joseph Clark. This process involves the driving of fluids under pressure toward the underground rock formations. The pressure is strong enough to cause the rock formations to fracture (Charlez, 1997). The fluids that are injected into the ground while subjected to pressure include water, sand, and other chemicals that are suitable enough to cause such pressure as to fracture rock formations underground. After causing the fracture and stimulating oil and natural gas resulting to formations, the proppant (the fluid under pressure that causes the fracturing) holds the fractures open which allows the formations to flow up towards the surface into production wells from where they shall be collected. In the context within which water is used as a proppant, the process is premised on the acquisition of water from various sources, one of which could be groundwater. The water is then mixed with chemicals and the proppant that in such a composition creates a hydraulic fracturing fluid. The hydraulic fracturing fluid is then subjected to a pressure sufficient enough to cause fractures in rocks underground, which would eventually stimulate the formations and receipt of oil and petroleum to the surface through the production wells after traveling through the cracks (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012). The water used in the process is then later subjected to re-use, treatment of the water or it is disposed of. Summarily, the process of fracking is separated into the spearhead stage, the pad stage, the proppant stage, and the flush stage. The spearhead stage involves mixing water with diluted acid in a quest to establish a crystal path for the fracture fluids. The pad stage involves the initial stage where the fluid without the proppant is used to initiate the fracturing process targeting the formation rocks. The proppant stage is where the mixture of water and sand that is the proppant is injected into the fracking well and subjected to compression to create pressure into the drill. Finally, the flush stage involves the injection of another freshwater into the wellbore to clear it of the residuary proppant. As of January 4, 2016, there were no active fracking wells in Oregon. However, previously in the emergence of hydraulic fracturing, there were nine fracked wells in the Coos Bay Basin in the Southern parts of Oregon (Kelso, 2015). The essence of Oregon in terms of hydraulic fracturing is the fact the state exhibits minimum exploitation of extraction of oil and gas through fracking. However, stakeholders still hold the opinion that the state still holds potential for future gas production, especially through fracking. By August 3, 2015, the FracTracker Alliance had accounted for 1,666,715 active wells across all states within the United States. This in all aspects includes the various types of wells fracked ranging from the oil wells that sum up to 213,095, the gas wells that amount to 198,248 wells, and Producing Oil wells that total up to 176,899. These statistics also included inactive wells which total up to 115,085 well, producing gas well counted up to 96,094. Oil and gas wells were found to sum up to 93,019, NAVL being 89,080. Gas wells were found to be 52,963 and service wells which totaled up to 42,982. Other fractured wells which could not be specifically classified amounted to 315,219 wells (Kelso, 2015). These were all subjects of the report of the Alliance that to a greater extent differed from the report it had released previously. From the industry’s perspective, the chemicals incorporated in the hydraulic fracturing process only form 0.5% of the proppant. They are described as common chemicals and among others include the following; first are the acids. In the proppant they play the role of dissolving minerals and instigating the initial stages of causing fractures in the rocks (API Global, 2015). The second chemical is sodium chloride. This is incorporated in the proppant to allow the slow breakdown of the gel polymer chains (API Global, 2015). In addition, Polyacrylamide is also incorporated to act as a lubricant between fluid and the pipe, just to prevent and corrosive effects. In addition, Ethylene glycol also forms part of the chemical composition playing the role of preventing scale deposits in the pipe that injects the proppant into the rock formations. Further, the borate salts also form part of the chemical composition regulating the proppant’s viscosity in the course of variation of temperatures, especially during increasing temperatures. Sodium or potassium carbonate also plays the catalytic role of maintaining the effectiveness of the other components involved in the fracking process (API Global, 2015). The proppant also incorporates the efficacy of glutaraldehyde, a compound that eliminates bacteria from the water used in the entire process that essentially forms 90% of the proppant. Guar gum also makes the water denser enough to suspend the sand for effective stimulation (API Global, 2015). Citric acid is incorporated in the composition as a compound that prevents the precipitation of metal oxides that form in the course of the injection of the proppant into the ground. Finally, isopropanol is incorporated into the mixture to increase the viscosity of the fracture fluid. The environmental groups can’t state to certainty the harmful chemicals that are used in hydraulic fracturing. The groups rely on toxic substances detected in the environs where fracking is done and to that extent attribute those toxic substances to fracking. For instance, the Texas Department of Environmental quality realized certain levels of benzene in the two fracking sites in the Barnett Shale region (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012).
Further, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental protection also detected certain levels of methane in the atmosphere, being attributed to the fracking sites in the state (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012). Similar detections were made in Arkansas where traces of volatile organic compounds were realized to form part of the atmosphere. Such chemicals detected in the environs surrounded with fracking sites have been interlinked with the fracking process and averments have been brought forth in claims that they form part of the chemicals that form the fracking fluids. This has been the position despite the assurance from the fracking industry that the chemicals used in the fracking fluid are those that form part of daily common use such as sodium chloride commonly used as a salt, among others listed above. Since water is the main component that forms the greatest percentage of the fracking fluids, it is certainly a fact that such a copious amount of water is required to initiate the entire process. In order to frac an ordinary well in any part of the US, the amount of water used varies with the geologic basin that is involved. For instance, in the Raton basin, approximately up to 50,000 gallons of water is required for the fracking of shallow coalbed methane well. On the other hand, approximately 800,000 gallons of water may be required to frac a deeper sand gas well in the Piceance basin (Houston, 2015). In the same vain, with regard to establishing a comparative analysis over fracking a vertical and horizontal well, it is reported in the DJ basin that up to 250,000 gallons of water may be required to frac a vertical well, yet up to 5 million gallons of water would be used to frac a horizontal well. On a comparative basis, one million gallons of water is equivalent to the amount of water consumed by a 1.5 acres corn farm in a season (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012). In this regard it would be easier to establish in terms of a quantitative analysis the amount of water required to frac a well in any place within the United States. On average basis, the amount of water required to frac a well would be 600, 000 gallons of water. This would be an estimate taking into account the variety types of wells that may be drilled across the states, including and not limited to the shallow, coalbed well, the deeper sand gas well (API Global, 2015). Further, it takes to account both the horizontal and vertical wells. Based on the presumption that a well is fracked once a year, it would be right to establish that the average amount of water used in fracking wells in the United States annually would sum up to 1000,029,000,000 gallons of water. After sufficient usage in the fracturing process, the waste water is subjected to management through various means. Such water can be managed through disposal wells, evaporation ponds, treatment in centralized waste treatment facilities, reuse or by discharge into the surface or road spreading (API Global, 2015). For instance when the water is channeled to the centralized treatment facilities, it is subjected to such treatment and released to the surface waters. Alternatively the water may be returned to other well operators for reuse in further fracking operations. In this regard, water with which reuse is intended may not be subjected to treatment as such, but just channeled back for yet another fracking process.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In other instances, the wastewater may be put into usage in various agricultural use such as irrigation once it has been released to the surface (Houston, 2015) . First, under Subtitle C of the enactment pursuant to section 322, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 governs fracking subject to an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act to define hydraulic fracturing as the “underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to fracturing operations related to oil, gas or geothermal production activities.” To this extent, the enactment limits the types of substances that may be used for hydraulic fracturing to injection fluids and propping agents with an exception on diesel fuels. Further, the enactment governs fracking at national level by empowers the Secretary to place limitations on royal relief granted pursuant to section 345 of the enactment (Brady & Crannell, 2012) . The incentives are provided for natural gas produced from deep wells on oil and gas leases, some of which are subject of hydraulic fracturing operations . Various enactments have been amended through the Energy policy Act. The amendments have been made on various federal laws that relate to the hydraulic fracturing process, therefore to this extent governs fracking at the federal level. For instance, an amendment to the Clean Water Act defining the terms “oil and gas exploration” to include construction activities, marks an example of such enactments. Such an amended exhibited impact of extending the storm water permit exemption to oil and gas operations which in this case includes hydraulic fracturing (Brady & Crannell, 2012) . In addition to other regulations, the Energy Policy Act also purports to protect water resources from being contaminated by the waste water produced at the end of the fracking process. In this instance, the act seeks to set requirements for certain facilities to be incorporated for spill prevention, control and counter measures aimed at protecting water resources from contamination by oil that may be discharged into such water sources in the course of the hydraulic fracturing process. The regulations require preparation of the aboveground storage facilities or buried storage capacities objectively to protect navigable waters and adjacent shores. In addition, the construction of such facilities is required to meet the threshold of good engineering, well-inspected and maintained in records with sufficient training of personnel in charge of preventing discharges into the water sources and in the long run prevent contamination of the same. Pursuant to amending the National Environmental Policy Act, the Energy Policy Act made amendments to the effect that excuses the hydraulic fracturing process as oil and gas activity from The National Environmental Policy Act regulations since such exploration activities bear no significant environmental impact. In addition, on 20 th October, 2011, the Energy policy Act was set to commence the process of setting standards for waste water discharged from the fracking wells in the rock formations. The Act also seeks to establish the safety of water in hydraulic fracturing by conducting a comprehensive study throughout the entire cycle that the water undergoes in the fracking process into the eventual discharge into the surface after treatment (Rodhan, 2015) . In this regard, the study would bear such an impact in the impending federal regulations in hydraulic fracturing. The recent legislations that have been enacted and amended with the view to regulating the fracking process from a federal perspective have meticulously made provisions that regulate all stages of the hydraulic fracturing process. Among other enactments they include the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Safe Drinking Water Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Superfund (Brady & Crannell, 2012) . The Clean Water Act appears relevant from the very first to the last stage that involves the fracking process. In the well construction stage, the enactment regulates this process by providing for protection of surface water resources that is enforced and supervised by the Inspection and Enforcement Authority. This is premised on the fact that, the use of water in the fracking process should not be an obstruction to effective and healthy domestic use of clean water from various water sources. At the end of the fracking process, in case of recycled water that is intended to be once again used in the process, the enactment comes in handy to ensure that the waste water is protected against spilling into the environment and contaminating clean water in the surface. The enactment also provide for management requirements that need to be put in place in order to manage the water produced out of the process as waste. This would be in terms of whether the water would be subjected to treatment before release to the surface or channeling the water for further reuse in the process. This regulatory measure also falls within the ambit of the Inspection and Enforcement Authority. Finally, the Clean Water Act also regulates the production phase of the fracking process by seeing to water resource protection and discharge requirements. This mode of regulation is meant to address the threat that water produced out of the fracking process poses to the water resources in the surface upon discharge. It is for this reason that further discharge requirements are incorporated to ensure that adherence to the same would in the long run protect water resources from contamination. The enactment, in addition to providing regulations, also makes provisions for the requirement that plants that discharge waste water into the surface, generate reports on how the same was done, the procedural regulations taken to considerations and measured adhered to pursuant to protecting water resources. The enforcement of these regulations fall within the ambit of the Inspection and Enforcement Authority as well. In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, being agency of the department of labour, the body plays a great role in regulation of the hydraulic fracturing process. For instance, at the well construction stage of the process, the agency sees to it that workers safety and operations are well catered for and secured. This is pursuant to protecting the human resource involved in the fracking process from any dangerous exposure that they may be subjected to in the course of the construction of wells. In addition, the agency also plays a role in ensuring regulation of the process of procurement of water that is used in the fracking process. In this regard, the agency is charged with the mandate protecting workers safety and operations. In the course of carrying out this mandate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration relies on the Inspection and Enforcement Authority for enforcement and imposition of such regulations as may fall within their mandate.
Besides overseeing worker safety and operations in the well construction and well procurement stages of the fracking process, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is also charged with the mandate of seeking chemical disclosure used in the fracturing solutions. In the same vain, this mandate bears the force of implementation through the Inspection and Enforcement Authority. This is attributed to the need to ensure that the chemicals used in the fracturing process are not hazardous in any way to the environment of in any way that may contaminate water resources. Another enactment relevant to the hydraulic fracturing process is the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The enactment is relevant to the hydraulic fracturing process in terms of regulating the substances used in the process. The enactment plays an oversight role to the process by hazardous substance reporting, while being backed by the force of the Inspection and Enforcement authority that sees to it that such mandates are put to implementation. The main purpose is to live to the main exemptions that the fracking industry enjoys from other enactments that regulate processes integral to environmental concerns. This being attributed to the less toxic substances used or emitted in the course of the process hence its chemical components are not regarded as hazardous as those emitted in other energy production plants (Charlez, 1997) . In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 also provides regulation to the fracking process. The enactment empowers the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate production, transportation, treatment and storage of hazardous waste. In regard to the fracking process, the waste would ultimately be the water that is produced in the last stage of the Hydraulic fracturing process. The enactment outlines the entire process of identifying hazardous wastes. In the case of the fracking process, the enactment has not listed fracking fluids as hazardous unless other substances are incorporated into use as drilling fluids. The enactment also requires that wastes from hydraulic fracturing process are stored in on-site tanks or surface pits to keep the same from contamination of surface water.
Finally, the other enactment that regulates fracking on a federal level is the Safe Drinking Water Act. The enactment comes in handy at the last stage of the process in terms of regulating the waste water that is released from the hydraulic fracturing process, of which is intended to be discharged into the surface for use. The enactment therefore regulates the water injection requirements through the Inspection and Enforcement Authority. This is aimed towards ensuring that such water as would be discharged to the surface for domestic use rather than being reused in the process, would be safe in terms of consumption and domestic use. In the recent times, April 2011, the Department of Bureau of Land Management amended land use plans across various states to open up approximately up to 2 million acres for hydraulic fracturing activity. The Energy Policy Act has establish a proposal to initiate the New Source Performance Standard that would be implemented to the oil and natural gas exploration and production operations. The recent amendment is meant to introduce the technology that would be useful in reducing emissions into the surface for hydraulically fractured wells. It is therefore certainly the fact that every stage of the fracking process is sufficiently regulated by various federal statutes with the aim to securing environmental protection, protection of the human resource incorporated in the initial stages of the process among other means by which the enactments regulate fracking in the US. It also appears quite apparently that the Inspection and Enforcement authority is in charge of implementing these regulations set out in the various enactments, in order to set in motion those particular regulations and see to it that they are adhered to in entirety. The interruption of water supply in surroundings bordering fracking wells is premised on the contamination caused in the water resources in the surface that the residents rely on for domestic use. The contamination could be attributed to spillage from wells used to contain the water waste. Further, despite the fact that the fracking drills go beyond the water bearing rocks, there stand chances that the fracking fluids may leak into the water bearing rocks and therefore compromise water supply (Begos, 2014) . In other instances, the contamination happens when the drilling is carried out horizontally into the ground in a manner that the drills come so close to the water bearing rocks. In addition, other instances of trucks being involved in traffic accidents resulting to spillage of the oil into the water resources have led to sudden default in water supply systems. Such areas faced by this predicament are among others in Pennsylvania. The Associated Press in the course of its enquiry found that up to 398 complaints were registered in 2010 of polluted domestic water in wells. This wasn’t so remote from the 499 complaints registered in the previous year. The interrupted supply, besides being attributed to contamination, has also lead to diminished flow into households with above a thousand cases registered on an average over the past five years. Still within Northeastern Pennsylvania, the EPA came to the realization of 9 wells attributed to drinking water that were contaminated by fracking wastes among other spills attributed to fracking process across the state. This meant putting at stake nine sources of drinking water supplies that would in the long run compromise water supply of those that relied on the nine well for water supply (Houston, 2015) . In another instance, the Ohio Environmental Council reported on the amount of water used in hydraulic fracturing in relation to the amount of water consumed in households. It was reported that, an average well would be fracked using 5.6 million gallons of water. This was set to be equivalent to the amount of water that would be sufficient enough to supply one household for fifty one years. This shows the greater extent to which fracking impacts water supply in Ohio (Begos, 2014) . However, precauti on has been taken by the Environmental Council to ensure that the drillers do not use streams or wetlands to source the water required to fracture wells. The health effects that threaten people in the name of hydraulic fracturing is premised on the fact that more fracking plants are set up in areas with residential surrounding and therefore bringing the dangers involved closer to the people. For instance, in Pennsylvania, a shale gas well is located within a mile of 14 schools and 104 day care centres (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . In Colorado, oil and gas companies are expanding into residential localities taking fracking to places where people abide. The heals effects, in addition, are also premised on the fact that oil and gas companies are being taken to locations near natural water resources that provide drinking water for more than 15 million people across the Delaware River Basin. The first impact fracking threatens to impose on public health is attributed to contamination of drinking water. This is attributed to the fact that fracking is related with contamination of both surface water and ground water. Rivers, lakes and streams in rural areas (where people rely on ground water for domestic use) are at the risk of being contaminated with spills and wastewater resulting from the fracking process. For instance, in Colorado and New Mexico, an approximation of up to 1.8% of gas-drilling projects contributes to ground water contamination (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . Despite the fact that the oil and gas companies have deployed precautions to prevent contamination of surface water by deploying waste pits, it’s been reported that the wells containing flowback water have failed to sustain such waste water hence the substances contained in fracking fluids end up escaping into the surface or ground water and further contamination. Based on that premise, the health problems therefore attributed to fracking are experienced by health workers, residents surrounding the oil and gas companies and even people remotely located away from the hydraulic fracturing sites. For instance, the chemical samples used in the fracking fluids have been attributed to causing cancer, endocrine disruptions, neurological and immune system problems among other diverse health effects (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . Such health problems commence from domestic use and consumption of chemically contaminated water and breathing into polluted air. Further, exposure to fracking fluids and life within the toxic environment has resulted into acceleration of various health problems among people in their areas of domicile. For instance in Texas, levels of benzene in the environment have been realized to be highly concentrated in the air and water (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . These high levels of concentration have been predicted to cause immediate impact to residents upon contact with the contaminated air or water. Benzene, being a chemical attributed to causing cancer, has been portrayed as a threat towards causing long-term illnesses to people residing in Texas.
In other places, for instance Pennsylvania, high levels of methane have been recorded in the air among other volatile compounds attributed to being part of the composition of natural gas (Charlez, 1997) . These have led to residents complaining of rashes, blisters and other diminished physical health conditions. Reports attribute these conditions to the contaminated water and air surrounding the fracking sites. The detection of these chemicals into the environment threatens the area residents with long term health problems attributed these environmental pollutants. In addition, communities residing near fracking sites register accelerated rates of heal issues such as headaches, eye and throat irritation, and respiratory issues among other deteriorative health conditions, all of which are also reported in Colorado. It is therefore certainly the fact that communities residing within few miles of fracking sites have reported deteriorated health conditions less likely to be reported in areas free of fracking plants. This has led to high costs being channeled towards treating major health problems such as cancer. The health problems also affect the human resource in the victims suffering from exposure to toxic chemicals produced from the fracking sites. In this regard, despite threatening health conditions and high costs in treating the same, the toxic chemicals also costs the states the productivity in the human resource. For instance, each day of declining human productivity costs tens of dollars per day in addition to the tens of thousands of dollars lost in treating the victims. Apart from the adverse health effects caused by release of toxins into air and water, other health effects attributed to fracking have been recorded in terms of work injury attributed to workers in the sites in addition to illness and deaths resulting from the fracking process. It is reported that oil and gas workers are seven times more likely to die than other workers in other departments of work. This is highly circumstantial and attributed to unforeseen or other foreseen events that accrue in the course of work. For example, traffic accidents, falling objects and explosions are the leading cause of fatalities in the fracking sites. Within the five-year period in between 2003 to 2008, up to 648 workers have been reported dead with the cause of their deaths being attributed to injuries they had to succumb to, that they acquired in the course of executing their duties in the oil and natural gas sites (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . For instance in fracking wells, the workers are prone to dying as a result of inhalation of silica sand in form of silica dust that is released to the environ in the course of freightage of silica from trucks to the well sites. In the event the workers are not well protected, inhalation of the dust would guarantee to them suffering silicosis, which upon casing inflammation of the lungs, leads to chronic cough or breathing difficulty or other long term effects such as causing lung cancer. It is also certainly the fact that the drastic health conditions caused by fracking to humans in their areas of domicile are, replicated with animals in their habitats. The hydraulic fracturing process therefore causes health effects to wildlife in terms causing them to lose their habitats hence fragmentation. With regard to loss of habitat, it is clear from the beginning of establishment of a fracking site that massive tracts of land are cleared to create room for the plants and and machines to be installed in the site. Such clearance of land causes adverse conditions to wildlife that is adopted to that ecological niche. To this extent most of the wildlife previously attributed to the area tend to migrate into other areas while others succumb to the harsh conditions and die. In terms of fragmentation, the establishment of fracking in certain areas has endangered the existence of various species of animals that previously enjoyed demographic majorities in such areas. For instance, in the Pinedale Mesa, the mule deer have been registered as endangered; this being attributed to incorporation of the fracking wells in the area. In addition, the Wild Life Conservation Society registered 82% decline in the pronghorn antelope in Wyoming; this also being attributed to natural gas fields in the surrounding (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) .
The process of fracking as described above operates on causing fractures in formation rocks to allow oil formations to flow towards the surface wells through the fractures created. The main objective behind the injection is causing permeability in the shale so as to allow the gas to flow into the production wells. This results into many small earthquakes which are less dangerous to raise eyebrows. However, further injection of wastewater and the salt water into the surface may result into earthquakes that are as fatal as having the potential to cause great damage. This is attributed to the fact that injection of water into the surface leads to reactivation of the previously fracture faults in the rock formations, especially the faults that are left unclosed. A better way of handling the waste water would be helpful in preventing further earthquakes caused by the wastewater released to the surface. This is bearing in mind that the fracking process per se does not cause earthquakes that are as fatal enough to cause substantive damage. An instance of the high magnitude earthquake was the case in Oklahoma in September, 2016. The magnitude 5.6 earthquake was the strongest to be ever registered in the state (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . The shaking was speculated to be caused by subsurface injection of the fracking wastewater and other water that is not attributed to fracking. Such was therefore not regarded as to be directly integral to the fracking activity itself. However, it was registered that the injection of the waste water and water production below the fracking horizon had resulted into the earthquake. A position was therefore established from this position, that the more copious the amount of water that is injected into the surface, the greater the magnitude of the earth quake. In another instance, Kansas city experienced the largest earthquake in its history. The earth quake claimed up to 40 miles southwest of Wichita in November 2014. This phenomena that bore 4.9 magnitude quake is claimed to have been felt through 150,000 square miles with impact being reported from areas as far as Memphis (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . It was established by the scientists at the U.S. geological survey that the earthquake was caused by waste water injected into the ground from nearby wells attributed to hydraulic fracturing. It is reports that the two wells surrounding the city owned by SandRidge Energy are still attributed to continuing to inject such amounts of water into the surface as they did prior to the earthquake. Up into July 2014, the injection of water waste has grown to five times the initial amount that used to be injected to the surface (Houston, 2015) . This speaks volumes in terms of the less acknowledgment that the injection of waste water into the surface is what caused the earthquake and as such should be halted or reduced or exploitation of other means of managing the waste water. This , in fact, raises alarm into the impending danger that is posed by such activity that the city of Kansas is still confronted with. Summarily, it is certainly the fact that the fracking process itself only causes trivial earthquakes that cannot be attributed to any damage. However, the registration of high magnitudes of earthquakes never registered before in places such as Oklahoma and Kansas, raise concerns into the management that is attached to waste water that is the by-product of the hydraulic fracturing process. It would therefore suffice to say that, hydraulic fracturing does not as such pose any danger in terms of causing earthquakes, rather, it tis the mismanagement of the wastewater that threatens the safety in the process. Fracking as development in the oil and gas industry has been controversially attributed to cause sinkholes manifested in various parts and stated in the United States. Recently in Bayou Corne, gigantic sinkholes have claimed among other utilities, homes, trees and even lakes. This has just been one in many occurrences of sinkholes exhibited in the South. Others include the Assumption Parish in Louisiana, a sinkhole that was discovered on August 3, 2012 upon which area residents were advised to vacate the area (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . The evacuation being predicted to last for years . Indeed, the soil in the south has been attributed to being weak to the extent that sinkholes are not so remote from occurrence. However, the increase in such sinkhole activity has lead suspicions to point towards the recent development in oil and gas that is produced through hydraulic fracturing. By virtue of the fact that fracking is mostly done horizontally beneath the surface, in this regard therefore covering more space compared to vertical drilling, leads to a greater part of the earth moved in the process of extraction. Since the concept mainly operates on fracturing the rock formations, it is inevitable that in the course of the process, various forms of geological disturbances may occur as a result. In that regard, water may be released from certain parts of the ground that may result into a sinkhole. In another recent instance, a sinkhole that occurred in the Kansas near the western town of Sharon Springs, has been attributed to fracking activity exhibited in the surrounding shale basin where hydraulic fracturing occurs. This has led to the conclusion of the area henceforth being prone to sinkholes that may result from the fracking activity surrounding the area. The sinkhole in Kansas in this aspect occurred in Caynon Farms Golf Club in Lenexa being attributed to the amounts of rain experienced recently back in June 2015 (Dutzik, Ridlington, & Rumpler, 2012) . Further, the sinkhole was attributed to there being an open pit quarry that ceased functionality. It is however inevitable to attribute the sinkhole to fracking activity in the state. A study conducted by the Western Reserve University reports that fracking is greatly contributing to the decline of the coal industry. The study registers the fatality that fracking threatens in the coal industry. Apparently, shake gas, by virtue of being less costly, is replacing coal in many states and areas where fracking thrives. The study records that since the approval of the new rules by the Supreme Court, enacted through the Energy Policy Act, the power plants that have previously used 93% of the coal produced in the country have registered decline in terms of this consumption down to 23 % from the year 2008 through 2015 (API Global, 2015) . The significant drop has been attributed to the introduction of shale gas that is a product of hydraulic fracturing, which provides a way cheaper alternative compared to coal. Further, it is quite inevitable how shale gas manifests besides the abovementioned economic advantages. To this extent, it would suffice to predict a further decline in the consumption of coal into the near future, probably to registering tremendously low percentages of consumption. This also goes with the stagnation in development of new coal power plants and decline of the ones that prevail currently. It is also worth noting that such decline registered in the coal industry is also attributed to prospectively emerging air-quality rules that would ultimately fetter the continuous exploitation of coal. As such, it is not only the emergence of the shale gas that is to blame for such decline, but the impending federal regulations as well. All in all, shale gas still manifests the greatest cause for decline of the coal industry being attributed to having accelerated the same; this is attributed to the increased gas supply in terms of annual projections and by virtue of the fact that there are low chances of emergence of other natural mechanisms that will allow room for coal to rekindle in terms of its consumption as well as production. The current world position as regarding global warming attributed to hydrocarbon wastes that as well emerge in the course of coal production, the movement towards mitigation of global warming has contributed to the preference of shale gas over coal. This is attributed to the fact that natural gas is a cleaner source of energy comparatively to coal. Until some clean innovative technology emerges for the purification of coal or one that renders coal a cleaner source of energy, the re-emergence of the coal industry may never see the light of the day in the near future. Summarily, since shale gas represents the future of clean energy to the planet, and delayed innovation into cleaner coal as a source of energy, it is more likely that hydraulic fracturing has been of a fatal impact to the coal industry. It is also certainly the fact that, the currently manifested rate of decline in the percentages of consumption of coal is just the beginning of the fatal decline of the industry. Only an innovation into cleaner coal as a source of energy would rekindle the industry form such decline; an innovation that is yet to be realized. Summarily, it is certain from the face of its description that fracking is a clean source of production of energy. On a comparative analysis to coal, it ranks first in terms of its cost effective nature to the economy and the energy market at large. Since the generation of fracking doesn’t lead to environmental emissions that result into global warming, to this extent, hydraulic fracturing presents itself as the future solution to greenhouse gases attributed to global warming. It is undisputable the vast number of fracking wells sank in the entire United States. The number has registered rapid increase due to the good reputation fracking is fetching from the economic platforms. To this extent it is quite obvious that all roads currently lead towards hydraulic fracturing. Indeed, the rate at which the number of fracking wells increase across all states is a clear manifestation of the acceptance and efficacy that this energy production process bears. With regard to the chemicals involved in the process, it is quite important to take note of the trivial amount and percentage of chemicals used in the fracking fluids. Despite the little amount of 0.5% that is involved in the process despite being so little is also attributed to less harmful chemicals which as listed by the fracking industry, are commonly used in normal and daily human activities. The toxic emissions attributed to diverse health effects are clearly a leakage into the atmosphere of improperly constructed waste wells. This can still be corrected and further regulated by deploying more strict waste management technologies rather than getting rid of the process in entirety which would on a proportionality test be of a detrimental effect compared to the precautions secured. Taking to account the amount of water used for fracking wells, it is certainly the fact that the source of water used for fracking does not deplete the water resources that supply water for domestic use. In addition in terms of the contamination of water resources, since the drilling in fracking goes way deeper away from surface water resources and other underground resources, it would suffice to say that chances of contamination of these water resources would be minimal. The recorded contaminations have only be recorded due to spillage and accidents integral to the process and not substantively in connection with the process per se. to this extent, it would be imprudent to attribute fracking to being a threat to water supplies in the United Stated. This is also made with recognition of the vast amounts of water used for fracking annually. In addition to the water concern, since contamination is the only threat, it would be my position that waste management be effected to better techniques among other certain means of preventing the water waste from leaking into the environment. This in the long run would go into eliminating the threats attributed to water supplies in terms of quantities used and contamination. It is inevitable the health concerns that arise from fracking. The deteriorating health conditions attributed to fracking have been associated with emissions and spillage resulting from mismanagement of waste in the fracking sites. In this regard, it would suffice to say that there are no immediate or substantive adverse health effects that can point fingers towards the hydraulic fracturing process. In this regard, on a proportionality scale, maintenance of fracking would outweigh its eradication as such conditions that can be subjected to correction can be dispensed with through enactments, regulations and establishment of mechanisms that enforce the regulations.
It is inevitable the magnitudes of earthquakes that have been registered in areas and states that embrace fracking. However, there has not been an establishment to certainty that the earthquakes have been caused by fracking. The only amenable explanation has been attributed to poor disposal of wastewater by reinjection into the surface. In the same vain, this waste management issue can ass well be addressed through research and innovations that contribute to the improvement of the same. It would be inaccurate to reinstate what the political fracking antagonists attribute to be the cause of earthquakes in the few areas that have registered the same. The issue regarding sinkholes, in the same spirit as earthquakes, is related to procedural technicalities that can be handled through innovations. To this extent, the geological effect does not merit a threshold as ground sufficient enough to cause the eradication of the fracking process. The decline of the coal industry as well does not establish a sufficient ground for the United States to give a cold shoulder to Hydraulic Fracturing, especially with the economic benefits it fetches the American economy. With sufficient regulations in place and minimal environmental effects and health effects, it would not be fair to dismiss the fracking process as it would be retrogressive to suggest deterioration into use of coal as a source of energy. Rather it would be commendable to enhance research towards the innovation of the process to reduce the threats it poses to the environment. Otherwise, the entire process is a prudent one that is commendable for use in the twenty-first century and for a promising future in terms of energy production. Fracking should therefore be expanded in the spirit of its continuation and further restricted objectively to protect against threats.
References
API Global. (2015). Hydraulic Fracturing: Unlocking America’s Natural Gas Resources . Retrieved from Energy API: http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/energy-primers/hydraulic-fracturing
Begos, K. (2014). 4 states confirm water pollution from drilling . Retrieved from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/
Brady, W. J., & Crannell, J. P. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation in the United States: The Laissez-Faire Approach of the Federal Government and Varying State Regulations. Vt. J. Envtl. L., 14 , 39.
Charlez, P. A. (1997). Rock mechanics: petroleum applications (Vol. 2). Paris: Editions Technip.
Dutzik, T., Ridlington, E., & Rumpler, J. (2012). The costs of fracking: the price tag of dirty drilling's environmental damage. Baltimore, MD: Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center.
Houston, M. (2015). US EPA’S STUDY CONFIRMS WATER CONTAMINATION CAUSED BY FRACKING . Retrieved from Ohio Environmental Council: http://www.theoec.org/one-ohio/us-epa%E2%80%99s-study-confirms-water-contamination-caused-fracking
Kelso, M. (2015, August 3). 1.7 Million Wells in the U.S. – A 2015 Update: Updated National Well Data . Retrieved from FracTracker: https://www.fractracker.org/2015/08/1-7-million-wells/
Rodhan, M. (2015). Feds Say Fracking Has Little Impact on U.S. Drinking Water . Retrieved from Time Science: http://time.com/3909595/fracking-epa-drinking-water-pollution/
