Musick, T. (2014, November 23). ‘Fracking’ and worker safety. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from

http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/11434-fracking-and-worker-safety

The article explains the need for safety regulations with employees of oil fracking companies. The constant exposure to toxic chemical poses obvious health hazards. According the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, there were 823 workers in the oil extraction industry were killed on the job between 2003 and 2010-a number too high to be overlooked. There are a multitude of safety regulations that need to be addressed by oil companies. Ultimately, the article demonstrates the controversy and near corruptness of the oil industry.

The article showed the controversy in employment at an oil company. While the safety of workers remains a prominent issue, oil companies have helped to drive down unemployment rate, as low as roughly 3% in several states. However, 800 deaths on the job in the span of seven years should not be overlooked. There is clearly a safety issue that is apparently not being addressed. This further demonstrates the need for stricter regulations on oil companies.

Parkingston, G. (2014, November 21). Fracking In US Is Biggest Red Herring In The

History Of Oil. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/21/fracking-us-biggest-red-herring-history-oil/

It is clear that the even more pertinent issue, beyond disagreement between environmentalists and oil companies, is the environmental impact that it is an inevitable effect from any kind of high powered oil drilling. UK Investor Jeremy Grantham studied the US fracking industry, and ultimately proved its unsustainable nature. He explains the economic discrepancies, citing the corrolation of lack of oil and oil prices. Toward the end, he emphasises the need for sustainable fossil fuel alternatives.

This article shows the environmental significance fracking plays in our modern world. It poses threats worldwide. Moreover, it is unsustainable. This is evident in the constant changing of gas prices-basic supply and demand. Obviously, there is an extremely high demand for oil 24/7, but the issue is that there is a finite amount of oil. We are now looking into alternatives, sustainable and affordable ones. However, this transition from fossil fuels is intricate and requires manpower, resources, and money.

Arenschield, L. (2014, November 21). Fracking industry suing over drilling bans. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/11/21/industry-suing-over-drilling-bans.html

With fracking in the United States becoming increasingly more controversial, there is a question that continues to be an issue. That is, who ultimately gets to decide where fracking can happen. The Ohio legislature made it apparent that the state deals with this, not local governments. In turn, this can create problems for places feeling the side effects of drilling oil more so than others.

This article demonstrates the issue behind the controversy. Residents argue their right to prohibit fracking in their community. They state their right to local self government, and the right to clean resources. At the same time, it is a major problem for state legislatures to decide who gets to have the last say in the issue. It makes sense that it is the state rather than local governments-the same is applied with issues like immigration.

Suhr, J. (2014, November 23). Judge denies bid to halt Illinois fracking rules : Business. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/judge-denies-bid-to-halt-illinois-fracking-rules/article_794421a1-55aa-5ad4-a2dd-b946bca8dc12.html

A recent stir has caused controversy in southwestern Illinois. A judge refused a bid by landowners to eliminate the state’s laws for fracking, ruling that they failed to show the state would be put into immediate danger if the drilling were to continue. Attorneys for the plaintiffs had shown flaws in the rules in regards to high volume fracking in the Illinois Department of Natural Resource, arguing the lack of scientific studies and lack of public input. Anti-fracking groups remain strong in their cause, stating that they will not back down until fracking is lowered to a minimum.

Once again, an obvious discord is evident between the government departments and anti-fracking groups. Additionally, this article showed how many of the rules involving fracking and other high volume drilling in the U.S. are flawed and outdated. In spite of this, natural resource departments remain inactive in helping form a compromise.

Gabriel, T. (2014, November 18). In Compromise Plan, Limited Fracking Is Approved for National Forest in Virginia. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/us-backs-limited-use-of-oil-drilling-technique-in-national-forest-compromise.html?_r=0

As of November 18, 2014, fracking in the largest national forest in the Eastern U.S. has been mostly banned. However, fracking remains legal in the George Washington National Forest. For the first time in years, all sides-industry, governors, and environmentalists are content with the compromise. That is, the decision to allow some fracking while closing off roughly 90% of the forest to drilling (something an earlier proposal would have allowed.)

The article shows the incongruity amongst the environmentalists and oil companies. The environmentalists stress the need for clean drinking water, something the forest provides with its various fresh water streams. Meanwhile, oil companies argue that the industry opens thousands of jobs, which in turn decreases the national unemployment rate and benefits the economy. However, in this rare case, both sides can feel satisfied. Given, 90% of the area is off limits to the oil companies, yet the 10% they do have left is still a hefty amount of land in the 1.1 million acre forest.

Fracking has proven to be a safe way to extract oil from well fields and shale oil fields. While its use of water has brought controversy, new studies are showing that fracking may help water conservation. In accordance to industry figures, the 830 California fracking wells used 323 acre-feet of water in 2013. California uses approximately 85 million acre-feet of water each year. 45% is under environmental law and habitat requirements. The other 40% is put aside for agricultural use. The final 10% for residential usage, and the remaining 5% allocated for industrial purposes. To put it in proportion, the amount of water fracking uses accounts for .0004% of water used in California. Meanwhile, recycling fracking water has become increasingly prominent. Anywhere from $70,000 to $300,000 is saved for every fracking well. The industry provides natural gas, jobs, a stable economy, and energy independence for years to come.

This article displays some of the benefits of fracking. However, fracking is not devoid of negative consequences, and it is up to environmental scientists to determine how to improve this method of oil extraction. If fracking can be made more environmentally friendly, it could be a replacement for oil and coal.

Fracking Recycles During Drought. (n.d.). Forbes. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from<>

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2014/08/18/fracking-recycles-during-drought/<>

On Tuesday, September 2, 2014, a new study showed how drilling natural gas from shale rock required large amounts of water. However, most of the world’s shale gas is found in places where water is already scarce. According to the World Resources Institute, “the amount of recoverable natural gas from shale formations would increase global reserves by nearly half.” This would boost the world economy enormously and would potentially reduce greenhouse gases, seeing as burning gas for energy is much more efficient than coal. Research has confirmed that 38% of shale resources worldwide are found in geographical regions that “are either arid or under high to extremely high levels of water stress.”

Spokeswoman Katie Brown of Energy in Depth, stated that, while water use in fracking is high, even in the most “prolific fracking states,” fracking accounts for only 1% of the states’ total water use. Others disagree. Senior water scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Jay Famiglietti, stated that this information was skewed because the majority of fracking is conducted in a localized area, it “uses nearly 100% of local water supply” and “its environmental impacts can be devastating.”

This article again displays the controversy regarding fracking. Different organizations try to prove their evidence on fracking is correct.

Furthermore, this article displays the potential positive environmental impacts from fracking. The potential positive impact on energy consumption makes environmental scientists’ jobs all the more important, because they need to research alternate ways to extract oil without contaminating or consuming too much water.

O’Connor, L. (2014, April 24). California City Becomes First To Vote To Ban Fracking. The             Huffington Post. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from<>

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/beverly-hills-fracking-ban_n_5208377.html<>

As of April 24, 2014, Beverly Hills became California’s first city to stop all oil drilling activity, including fracking. Councilmen Josh Mirsch explained that the issue needs to be evaluated on a long term basis, stating how injecting massive amounts of water and chemicals at high pressure into the Earth is extremely unsafe. Recent studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey linked fracking to pollution and an increase in earthquakes. Governor Jerry Brown stated his approval and hope that other communities should follow their example. Despite the health concerns connected with fracking, the California Department of Conservation maintains that “hydraulic fracturing has been used as a product stimulation method for more than 30 years with no reported damage to the environment.”

This article demonstrates the controversy within state government involving fracking. On one end of the spectrum, government agencies prove the correlation of fracking with the unsafeness of water and air quality in California, while other agencies maintain their initial stance that fracking does not have an effect on the environment. Such controversy only heightens the importance for environmental scientists to accurately evaluate the impacts of fracking.

O’Connor, L. (2014, April 24). California City Becomes First To Vote To Ban Fracking. The             Huffington Post. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from <>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/beverly-hills-fracking-ban_n_5208377.html<>

On July 19, 2014, California ordered an immediate shut-down of eleven oil and gas waste injection sites and began reviewing over a hundred other oil drilling sites in the Central Valley. Officials worried that companies were possibly pumping toxic fracking remnants into drinking aquifers. The issue begins with the fact that at least one hundred of California’s water aquifers were deemed useless because of bad water conditions. As a result, the government exempted their environmental protection and the oil industry began polluting them on purpose. Now, in accordance to the state, at least seven aquifers have been contaminated. Reports have indicated that state inspectors have often allowed injections in unsafe conditions. Now, according to state officials, further examination is inevitable.

This article signifies the importance of our water systems, particularly aquifers and other means of purifying water for safe drinking. It also highlights the necessity for proper state inspection of such prominent systems and shows the consequences when done incorrectly. The article states that there is no hard evidence of unsafe drinking water, however there were definitely toxic fracking fluids that inadvertently ended up in water wells.

Feldman, J. (2014, July 19). California Shuts Down Injection Of Fracking Waste To Protect             Scarce Water. The Huffington Post. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/19/california-fracking-contamination_n_5600512.html

As of August 28, 2014, fracking is again legal in the state of California. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management decided to retract a federal ban issued in 2013, that prohibited fracking and other “enhanced drilling techniques” in California. The decision allows oil and gas leases for federal lands in California. The decision comes after studies have proven that methods of fracking in California are less detrimental to the environment than those of other states. While most fracking involves drilling oil and gas from rock through the injection of high-pressure water mixtures, sand and chemicals, California oil drilling often involves less water and a greater amount of chemicals. Despite these improved methods, The Center for Biological Diversity has stated their concern in the lack of research on the risks of fracking to the state and the general prematureness of the change.

This article is relevant to environmental science because it discusses the impacts of fracking. Even though there are improvements in technology and methods, fracking still requires large amounts of water, and energy. California is currently experiencing extreme drought, and any use of water – including fracking – strains its environment. Thus, it is important for environmental scientists to understand the consequences of fracking and other enhanced drilling techniques, and how these consequences affect the environment.

Feds to resume leasing for fracking in California. (n.d.). Washington Post. Retrieved September             7, 2014, from <>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/feds-to-resume-leasing-for-fracking-in-california/2014/08/28/16fbbd52-2f00-11e4-be9e-60cc44c01e7f_story.html