You are on page 1of 3

Fracturing a deep shale layer one time to release natural gas might pose little risk to drinking-water supplies,

but doing so repeatedly could be problematic If fracking is defined as a single fracture of deep shale, that action might be benign When multiple fracks are done in multiple, adjacent wells, however, the risk for contaminating drinking water may rise. If fracking is defined as the entire industrial operation, including drilling and the storage of wastewater, contamination has already been found. Advanced tests, such as putting tracer chemicals down a well to see if they reappear in drinking water, could prove weather fracking is safe or not. Some regulators are not waiting for better science they are moving toward allowing fracking on an even wider scale Technique been combined with a newer technology called directional or horizontal, drilling- the ability to turn a downward-plodding drill bit as much as 90 degrees and continue drilling within the layer, parallel to the ground surface. U.S estimated 827 trillion cubic feet of unconventional shale gas within reach Unlike fracking of vertical wells, horizontal fracking needs enormous volumes of water and chemicals Ponds and tanks are needed to store the flow back water that comes up the hole after wells have been fractured Fracking is not that powerful. It is not enough to blow open new fissures. Companies may drill a dozen or more vertical wells to maximize access to gas. Scientists and regulators are trying to answer the complex question. Department of Environmental Conservation unveiled a plan to give drilling companies access to 85% of state's portion of the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations. Fracking would not be allowed in NYC or Syracuse watersheds, because water supplies and unfiltered between those water supplies. Transporting liquids involves fleet of tanker trucks and large storage containers 75% percent of what is blasted down comes back up. Chemicals are used to help fracking flow Toxic water must be stored on-site and later transported to treatment plants Impacts can be blamed on fracking if the term refers to the whole industrial process. To show that racking as industry defines the problem, you have to examine the alleged threat that is simultaneously the most publicized and yet the most certain The idea that water blasts deep underground can directly contaminate drinking water, by creating unexpected pathways for gas or liquid to travel between deep hale and shallow groundwater. Faulty cementing is the leading suspect in possible sources of contamination Any well has to pass through near-surface layers that contain groundwater

It c implicating or absolving fracking, no matter how it is defined, will require more data.ould also pass through unknown pockets of gas. Drillers fill the gap between the gas pipe and the wall of the hole with concrete so buoyant gas cannot rise up along the outside of the pipe and seep into groundwater. The irony is, although it is very possible that gas companies have been guilty of carelessness in how they drill wells and dispose of waste, fracking technology itself may be exonerated.

The article talks about what is a really major problem in America, Fracking. The dictionary meaning of fracking is the forcing open of fissures in subterranean rocks by introducing liquid at high pressure especially to extract oil or gas. What is not listed on the dictionary meaning is that fracking causes disasters in the drinking water of people and in extreme cases it causes death of people. There are a lot of chemicals used in fracking and if those chemicals get into peoples drinking water they dont do any good. The article states that if its frequently done in a given area itll definitely make the water undrinkable and harm the people but if we use the technology we have now and make the fracking chemicals and the water line unrelated there might be better results.

c. From my point of view the article restates what I saw in gasland in better ways. I wouldve said fracking should be stopped compared to the damage its causing to people but its one of the major controllers of the economy and if its stopped there will be a decline in the economy. So one of the solutions I thought is decreasing the chemicals they use to speed up the systems means a little less risk. Also not fracking in the same place frequently then that very place wont be harmed as much.

So what? Fracking may be good for economy but its really harmful because when its conducted it gets connected with a water supplier and pollute it with harmful chemicals Says who?

Chris Mooney What if...? There was an ecofriendly way to extract gas or oil? What does this remind me of? Gasland by john fox