Air Pollution Fracturing - Essay Example

Air pollution fracturing When talking about air pollution we should consider the benefits of the hydraulic fracturing actions that cause this kind of pollution. But at the same time when we breathe the smoke and the chemicals in the air we should also see the effect of this kind of pollution to our health. Air pollution is a condition that occurs when air contains gases, dust, fumes or harmful chemical amounts. Hydraulic fracturing is a method commonly used by oil and gas companies to increase production of oil or gas from a well. The method of hydraulic fracturing has exhibit a low flow rate usually due to geological rock fracturing that are too dense and allows the economic recovery of hydrocarbons. Due to factors of its formation, hydraulic fracturing has faced critics between different groups of scientist especially the environmentalists and the miners of the United States of America. A number of bills have been passed to criticise and support this kind of method. I guess it is time for a push for these bills to be passed since manufacturers and miners have caused a lot of health complication and environmental degradation but a proper punishment have not been given to these polluters. Discussion First call; supportive argument Surely by now people living around mine field’s area none of you can deny that hydraulic fracturing has been the major cause of air pollution. Institution like the University of Arizona is supporting the use of hydraulic fracturing. In Beijing on 27th of November 2013, authorities in the capital destroyed more than 500 open air barbecues due to small particulate matters in the air that can enter deep into lungs causing health difficulty (abc News). In a survey published by environmentalists group, 86% of those polled said that air pollution have caused health complication, 40% reported that environmental degradation have been highly caused by hydraulic fracturing. The department of soil, water and environmental science (SWES) of university of Arizona have defined some basic rules that can be followed to improve the environment quality. The purpose of development of SWES was to provide knowledge, skills, tools, and awareness pertaining to environmental quality and human-environment interactions in order to improve and sustain the function of environmental systems and protect human health. The university group can therefore develop various ways to improve the air quality while maintaining the hydraulic fracturing method. The environment department of the university call consider bringing together a group of experts to participate in the discussion of the risk involved in hydraulic fracturing.   Scientific research team from the group recently formed in the University of Arizona, the GREEN (Greening Research, Education and Environment Network) can develop research study that can help determine the impact of hydraulic fracturing and its effect to air and water pollution. The group can come up with various proof as to what cause the environmental air pollution apart from the hydraulic fracturing at the same time they can determine certain element that pin hydraulic fracturing as the source of air pollution. They as well can figure out the fact found in the research carried out in 1997, where an important study appeared in the New England Journal of medicine, the authors, Donald Redelmeier and Robert Tibshirani studied around 700 volunteers who made health as a study subject to the hydraulic fracturing effect to the environment. The participants agreed to report any non-fatal collision in which they were involved in during the research; the researchers then assessed the dangers involved with air pollution. The result was that people who were close to the mines and industries were highly exposed to the effects of air pollution fracking. Groups have argued differently, the scientist from different countries have argued that the reservoir stimulation through the hydraulic fracture is a critical element in unlocking geothermal potential energy production where natural permeability is inadequate, while on the other hand environmentalists have argued that hydraulic fracturing have increased the rate of air pollution and have led to the contamination of most surface and underground water sources. The SWES researchers such as Raina Maier and Julie Neilson, along with Professor Barry Pryor in the School of Plant Sciences, contributed content that state laws have made legislation regulating hydraulic fracturing is very unnecessary. It is sad that these is not true since the law regarding hydraulic fracturing vary from one state to another, and the punishment also varies in these states regulation. . They believed that despite the fact that hydraulic fracturing has been in employed for almost 60years, having first been used to simulate oil and gas wells in early 1950’s, they believed that there were very many uncertainty that surrounded its use. Scientists had the believe that natural gas drilling can be an alternative source of power compared to coal power, which would help reduce human impact on climate changes. However, environmentalists carried out a research based on impact of hydraulic fracturing, they found out that fracking contributes to large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, in fact they also realise that their findings were almost similar to some scientist who predicted that by 2030 methane would be a huge contributing factor of greenhouse gases produced of approximately 44%, whereby 17% is due to the practise of fracking operations a research that can be disapproved by the research students from University of Arizona GREEN if they carry out a similar research study to disapprove the effect of methane in the air. This is why the common hydraulic narrative is that the technology pollutes water supplies; the manufacturing narrative is that fracturing is a menace to the environment is now shifting to air quality. When certain kind of behaviour is shown to be especially dangerous, such as hydraulic fracturing, it wise to draft special laws making such acts illegal and imposing specific punishments. The drafted laws against the hydraulic fracturing as criticised by the by different research carried out to show the benefits of use of hydraulic environment to the community and indicated that it reduces the states potential of generating easy energy from natural gas and fracturing activities. By imposing such laws have some benefits as argued by the courts of law from the affected states. They leave no ambiguity for miners not to convince themselves that there is no negligence mining. The departments from university of Arizona is capable of carrying out several disapproval research to convince different states that imposed ban on hydraulic fracturing by on December 2002, to more than twenty states that were restricted from the use of hydraulic fracturing method. In most countries like France, authorities have put a temporary ban on hydraulic fracturing as they continue to study the effect they have on environment. Currently courts in different states have imposed bans with a general interest of protecting environment and noted difference between the geothermal and shale gas exploration techniques. The courts have also rejected the argument of the scientist and miners who claims that the ban went against property rights. Due to this ban countries like France cannot practise fracking since it is against the law, hence inhibiting their chances of exploration that could evaluate potentially large non-conventional carbon resources. States on the other hand are currently taking deliberate measures on hydraulic fracturing to reduce negative effects. Despite the risks that is associated with drinking water supplies by fracking, most of the oil companies are even seeking to drill near sources of drinking water exposing very many people to the risks of contamination and creating water shortage. Since hydraulic fracturing is considered a state and a local issue, very few states have made an effort to pass the bills that regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing method. It makes more sense to legislate these county laws like the one made in Texas about fracturing, at the state level. Second call; opposing argument Air pollution is caused by substances that are called pollutants; the substances are pumped into our atmosphere and they directly pollute the air. In many occasion people don’t believe in the truth, and most of them believe that the truth hurts. The truth that is aligned with hydraulic fracturing involves the injections of fluid consisting of approximately 99.5% water, sand, while the rest consist of industrial submission into air. The environmentalists have been against the use of this method believing that the chemicals that are being subjected into air are harmful for both leaving and non-living organism (Settgat, Johnson, Fu, Walsh, & Ryerson, 2012). In their book they continue to argue that the formations of the reservoir are thousands feet below the bedrocks where the water comes from, hence contaminating the water. Despite the argument from the scientist that there has been more developed technology that is currently used effectively, they say that there is nothing new when it comes to fracturing. Plenty of research has been carried out to determine the effect of air pollution and also the benefits of air contamination by the hydraulic fracturing process. The fracking method have been linked to increase air pollution that is hazardous to the health of the residents around the area affected and it can also contribute to high climate change. According to the scientist from the University of Arizona they say that fracking creates many opportunities for the release of air pollutants, the final products such as diesel fuel for engines, or release of fracturing fluid which been major contributors in water pollution even though it can be an alternative energy source. There has been no credible data that have shown that the fracturing of shale formation has ever contaminated the water. During the past years, a lot of changes have happened in the gas mining industries in process to mining that uses hydraulic fracturing. There has been a constant increase in the number of oil wells being dug despite the raised concern over the effects of mining using hydraulic method. During April 17th, 2012, the Environmental protection Authority (EPA) issued new regulations that was to govern the operations of hydraulic fracturing, requiring operators to use special equipment to separate and capture the gas liquid and hydrocarbons from the flow back that comes from the fractured well to the surface Helman & Staff (2012). Due to this implementation the University of Arizona should be prepared to deal with the EPA when trying to support the use of hydraulic fracturing. According to EPA they always estimate the decrease of environmental degradation to be around 95% reduction in the volume of toxic gases that will be emitted to the atmosphere around the mining environment, therefore the University should make sure that they maintain a lower environmental degradation effect as low as 65% this is due avoid the conflict between them and the EPA. According to EPA the tapped gas can be used to produce more energy, therefore they will challenge the miners and the scientists to use that method. Despite all that the opponents have laid complaints that the new rule has face-in-period, enabling companies to pour clouds of various gases of pollution into the air. These have failed to recognize the oil and gas production which is already a subject to extensive federal and state air quality regulations, but they still become the major contributors to air pollution. The EPA’s emissions estimates from well completions were probably overstated. The gas that were trapped, had no ability to produce more energy and reduce air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing being limited by legal limited authority. Some of the states in America have already imposed the ‘green completion’ requirement for fractured well that emit a lot of toxic materials. It has been largely contributed by the federal government’s laxity to enact federal laws that regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing in mining gas. Industries using the hydraulic fracturing to pollute air should not grouse about the cost-effective and feasible manner of capturing emissions. The argument of the scientist approach is that, the public should be aware that air emissions associated with hydraulic fracturing only covers small part of a very large and complex issue, but rather they should believe that the oil and gas industries are reducing their part to reduce air emissions from a variety of sources. The adoption of the set policy by the EPA cannot stop fracturing opponents from casting a dark cloud over fracturing based on air quality panic, just as they did regarding water quality. Based on the research done by environmentalists, emissions from fractured wells were indicated as the major cause of cancer. The scientists who supported the use of hydraulic fracturing based their argument that you cannot determine the cause of cancer without extensive data about dosage. In 2010, 18 oil wells were fracked a mile from individual’s homes in Texas, making a total of 37 existing wells with processing facility and a waste water injection well within the area. The loud trucks, the horrible smell, caused people around the area to develop diseases, nose bleeding because of the toxic substances in the air they breathed. As the oil production increased in the area the community and the people around started smelling odours and continued developing health issues. Like in 2012 the residents filed a total of 30 air quality complaints with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The commission then selected group of experts to evaluate and investigate the environment impact and treats post by the air pollution of fracking in the area. When the results were filed it revealed that TCEQ officials that visited the area evacuated themselves due to high levels of air pollution. The university of Arizona should be concerned with looking at the fact of this research so that they can build the base for their support. From the report the EPA and the authority in Texas will pose some ban on air pollution fracking. At the same time a controversial report was published in the University of Texas that denies the link between hydraulic fracturing with air pollution or water. The gases that were found in the water from this region showed that they were likely attributed from other factor rather than fracturing. The findings of this report supported the idea that there was no need for new rules and regulations to govern the process of hydraulic fracturing but rather the lawmakers should strengthen the existing laws in drilling, for instance those that cover well casing and disposal of waste water from drilling. The report though was criticised by the environmentalists to be biased since the leader researcher had a vested interest in the gas mining industry. The miners and scientist from the University of Arizona should do research that will support their argument for the use of hydraulic fracturing. Conclusion Air pollution fracturing does not affect human but they have economical negative impact. The scientist on one hand argued that the toxic and the chemicals being injected in the environment if mixed with the rain form acid rain that is more useful to farmers and crops to some way. More farmers are particularly impacted by fracking water use, as they must compete with the deep pocketed oil and gas industry for water, especially in drought stricken regions, Elizabeth (2013). In some areas fracking makes up a significant share of overall water demand. In 2010, Texas consumed an amount of water equivalent to 9% of the city of Dallas annual water use. Research report that was carried out by university students showed that greenhouse emissions from shale gas production are worse than the open fracturing and burning of coal. Both coal and gas always plays an important role in our energy field. Even though the air pollution caused problems to the environment, the benefit accrued is such as; hydraulic fracturing has increased the supply of gas in the country. The form of fracturing such as horizontal fracking has meant a boom in gas drilling and production. It meant more jobs in certain areas of the country. The methodology used in hydraulic fracturing also has risks. The risks of this kind of drilling have outweighed its benefits. Hydraulic fracturing is associated with air quality are; fracking during the drilling has high chances of producing cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and methane during a burst of gas released during the first few days after a well is tapped, Halloway and Rudd (2013). The effect of the gasses emitted can also cause global warming and they as well have health impact when subjected to the environment. From the indications in this report has shown, pollution to some perspective of the scientist is a cost of production and cannot be considered as a moral of evil as justified by the environmentalists argument. It calls upon us to realise that we cannot outlaw hydraulic pollution and come to view hydraulic fracturing as merely a cost of human activity, and therefore we can begin to devise creative environmental policies that can regulate the hydraulic fracturing to benefit both parties. This essay proofs that public complain and choice can be used to make environmental policies. From this we can challenge the Environment protection authorities to use the choice model to reduce the negative effects of externality of hydraulic fracturing in air. Works Cited Ridlington, Elizabeth. "Fracking Poses Grave Threats to the Environment and Public Health." Fracking Poses Grave Threats to the Environment and Public Health 1.1 (2013): 1-47. Print. Holloway, Michael D., and Oliver Rudd. Fracking: The operations and environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing. Salem, Mass.: Scrivener Publishing/Wiley, 2013. Print. "UTC Aerospace Systems to Provide Sunwing Airlines with Service on Major Nacelle Components for Its Boeing 737 Fleet." Defense & Aerospace Week 11 Sept. 2013: 65-150. Print. Read More