c c

c

c
Jeff Elliott
Writ 1133 Section 11
Professor Hill
4/2/2011
Fracking«Is it Worth the risk?

Over the past few years there has been an increasing argument over natural gas

mining and more specifically hydraulic fracturing (³fracking´). This is the process by

which chemicals mixed with water are injected into wells to break up rock formations

that in turn release natural gas. This system of mining for natural gas is extremely

efficient for gas companies to harvest natural gas. However, there has been rising concern

from people that this ³fracking´ of the Earth is a health hazard to humans. The top

concerns expressed by residents of Colorado and environmental organizations are that

³Fracking´ has and will continue to pollute the air and water quality of areas where it

occurs. Another claim against hydraulic fracturing is that it can cause Earthquakes.

The opposition to these claims comes from the oil and gas companies who are

using hydraulic fracturing to get natural gas from deep within the Earths crust. They

claim that there is no major health risk associated with ³fracking.´ Mark Fischetti, an

author of an article that discussed this issue in the Scientific American last July, stated a

two-year study into ³fracking´ by the EPA is ³due in 2012,´ and ³could add scientific

clarity´ to the issue (Fischetti, 82). Until the EPA comes out with their study the question

of whether or not ³fracking´ is safe is up for deliberation. However, the evidence that has

been collected leans towards the opinion that ³fracking´ is a hazard to human health

wherever it occurs.

One of the major concerns with hydraulic fracturing of the earth comes from the

chemicals in the fluid used to break up the rock. In the Environmental Health

c c
c c

c
c
Perspectives, John Manuel stated, ³In many locations fracking²in which a mixture of

water, sand, and chemicals is injected into natural gas wells under high pressure²occurs

within hundreds of feet of residences that use wells for drinking water´ (Manuel, 118).

Valerie Brown, another writer for Environmental Health Perspectives, quoted

Theo Colborn, president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange in Paonia, Colorado,

claimed that some fracking additives that end up in produced water are neurotoxic. Of

these additives, 2-butoxyethanol was included. ³If you compare [such chemicals] with

the health problems the people have, they match up´ (Brown, 2). This is concerning

because no one wants a neurotoxin having any chance of getting into their drinking water

or into the atmosphere. According to the Clinical Chemistry Journal, ³butyl glycol (2-

butoxyethanol), a chemical intermediate and a solvent used by printers, by painters, and

in textile dyes, dry cleaning, and pesticide chemistry´ (Batt, Ferrari, 1883). The fact that

people could become exposed to this chemical is scary in itself, but it¶s terrifying when

the thing causing it is not planning on stopping anytime soon.

Brown points out that Brian Macke; director of the Colorado Oil and Gas

Conservation Commission countered this accusation with the claim that they have tested

many wells after residents complained and none of them showed an impact from the

chemicals (Brown, 2). The fact that the actual chemicals used in ³fracking fluid recipes

are proprietary and thus unavailable to the public´ (Brown, 2), means that the people

testing for pollutions from ³fracking´ fluids don¶t actually know what they¶re searching

for. This is just a little bit concerning considering it¶s fairly difficult for inspectors to find

contaminants if they don¶t know what to look for.

These concerns manifest themselves in two different areas of worry, air and

c c
c c

c
c
water. The problem with hydraulic fracking is that it produces VOC¶s, or volatile organic

compounds. The article ³Putting the Heat on Gas,´ states ³groundwater« that can

contain fracking chemicals is usually re-injected underground or placed in evaporation

ponds on the surface´ (Brown, 2). The funny thing about evaporation ponds is that their

purpose is to evaporate. Which would mean that the VOC¶s in the ponds would evaporate

into the atmosphere, thus affecting the air quality for residents near these ponds. For

example half of Colorado¶s drilling rigs are in Garfield County and between 2004 and

2006, VOC emissions in Garfield county rose 30 percent (Brown, 1). This seems to be

pretty clear evidence that fracking and natural gas drilling rigs can emit dangerous

chemicals into the air that can be harmful for anyone living near these rigs, like the

residents of Garfield County.

A health impact assessment for Battlement Mesa is an assessment of the risks of

another possible ³fracking´ operation in Garfield County. This was an assessment

conducted by seven experts. Roxana Witter, MD, MSPH, is involved in the Colorado

School of Public Health and was a leader for this assessment. The assessment concluded

that if Antero, (gas company wanting to drill) executes their project in Garfield County

then the ³air quality degradation may last for the duration of Antero¶s project´ (Witter,

24). This group of researchers concluded that the ³impacts to air quality are expected to

be frequent and occur constantly«concentrations in residential ambient air may be high

enough to cause short-term and long-term disease´ (Witter, 24). If the creation of a new

drilling in Garfield County will cause the air quality to drop then it is reasonable to

concur that any ³fracking,´ negatively affects the air quality in the surrounding area of

these drilling sights and should not be allowed to continue.

c c
c c

c
c
Something that is more of a major concern to the public is the possibility of the

³fracking´ chemicals leaking into the ground water and contaminating it. Mark Fishetti

for Scientific American wrote ³industry leaders, including Range Resource¶s Witley

point out that no cases of groundwater contamination due to the fracking process have

ever been documented´ (Fischetti, 85). However, the counter argument to this claims that

the phrasing used by industry leaders ³refers only to injected fluids rising back to

groundwater level. They note that when the entire fracking operation is considered,

including wastewater holding ponds, hundreds of contamination incidents have been

documented´ (Fischetti, 85). These incidents are clear signs that maybe ³fracking´ isn¶t

worth the risk.

In 2005 Congress exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking

Water Act partly because of the ³EPA report Evaluation of Impacts to Underground

Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs´

(Manuel, 119). The authors of this report felt like no additional study is needed after they

made this report. ³However, the study involved no direct monitoring of water wells but

instead relied on existing peer-reviewed literature and interviews with industry and state

and local government officials´ (Manuel, 119). This is concerning considering the fact

that the EPA at this time didn¶t even study wells that could have been contaminated.

They just researched other people¶s literature and interviewed the industry and

government officials. This is not a way to study the impacts of something on the

environment. It is necessary to actually test the wells in the field.

A claim that the gas industry makes is that the fracking is occurring hundreds of

feet deeper that ground water so there cannot be any contamination into the groundwater.

c c
c c

c
c
However, Ed Quillen, a writer for the Denver Post quoted a retired hydrologist saying

³his discipline 'is more an art than a science.' There is much that is not known about how

fluids move underground´ (Quillen, 1). This statement coming from an expert on fluids

debunks the gas industries claims. The fact that an expert on how water works doesn¶t

know everything about how fluids move underground then how can gas companies claim

their fracking fluids won¶t move up into the ground water? The fact is that they don¶t

have any idea how these fluids will move underground yet they claim they do. And they

just keep on drilling and without worrying about the potential health and environmental

hazards which may be great.

Cleburne, Texas is located near a lot of ³fracking´ for natural gas and has

experienced a ³wave of small earthquakes´ (Quillen, 2). There is no proof of a

connection but there is one Colorado incident in the 1960¶s. ³Starting in 1962, Denver

suffered a spate of earthquakes, including a 5.3 tremor in 1967 that caused more than $1

million in damage´ (Quillen, 2).

The cause of these quakes was due to ³injecting fluids into a deep well at the

Rocky Mountain Arsenal just north of the city´ (Quillen, 2) Now this sounds pretty

³fracking´ familiar. This is another example of the negative affects of ³fracking´ on the

environment. If this is causing Earthquakes that endanger property and peoples lives then

it is only reasonable that the practice of ³fracking´ be halted.

The business of pumping water and chemicals deep into the ground with the goal

of fracturing rocks is more trouble than the natural gas that comes up out of the wells. It

negatively affects the peoples living in proximity to these wells. Not only does ³fracking´

pollute groundwater but it also pollutes the air quality around them with VOC¶s. The

c c
c c

c
c
EPA is conducting a study that will end in 2012; hopefully their study will solidify the

beliefs that hydraulic fracturing of the Earth is extremely hazardous to people¶s health.

c
c
c c

c
c

Works Cited

Batt, AM; Ferrari, L. ³Manifestations of Chemically Induced Liver Damage.´ Clinical

Brown, Valerie J. "Putting the Heat on Gas." Environmental Health Perspectives 115.2
(2007): A76. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.

Fischetti, Mark. "The Drillers Are Coming." Scientific American 303.1 (2010): 82-85.
Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.

Manuel J 2010. ³EPA Tackles Fracking.´ Environ Health Perspective 118:a199-a199.

Quillen, Ed. "Watching out for fracking. " Denver Post 16 Jun 2009, ProQuest
Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.

Witter, Roxana. ³Health Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County Colorado.´
Google Scholar. 4 Apr. 2011.

c c
c c

c
c
Peer Review

Ryan,
In terms of your research paper it is well done. In terms of your introduction I
would suggest you break up the large paragraph that is your introduction. Also maybe
incorporate some statistics about electronic music like number of avid listeners,
something like that just to get the readers attention and hold it. You do make a clear
argument in your paper but make sure you structure this into more of a thesis statement.
You gave a lot of facts about electronic music but I feel like you need to include more
facts about its dominating features or of its popularity with the youth of today.
You also need to take into account the opposing side of your argument. I can
imagine there are a lot of people who feel like another type of music (rap/hip-hop for
example) is the dominating music of today. There¶s bound to be sources that support the
other side of your argument, consider including them and then debunking their claims
with facts from your side of the argument. You definitely need to find a few more
sources, consider what I said before and gather a source that doesn¶t support your view.
You did a good job of incorporating your sources but you need to cite any information
you gained from our sources in your paper itself.

I.c Conclusion
a.c Electronic music is dominating youth culture.
II.c Body
a.c Evolution of technology used in recording
b.c Reasons for why Electronic music has dominated the last few years
c.c (Include counter-argument to above statement)
III.c Introduction
a.c History of evolution of music genres
b.c Thesis that jazz and Rock and roll are outdated and electronic music is
the dominating music genre today.

c c