Arguments Against Fracking

For the past twenty to thirty years, hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, has been the number one source of natural gas, oil, and energy in the United States. The process of fracking is that a well is built above the ground and then a drill digs several thousand feet deep into the ground to extract the oil and natural gas that is trapped inside of rock formations. Fracking is very controversial because of the cost of the process and the environmental “threats” that it poses. From methane emissions to earthquakes, fracking has been accused to be linked with several environmental issues. To prevent any environmental dangers, states place regulations and boundaries that energy companies have to follow in order to build a well and keep it up and running. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) also works with states to help regulate these wells. More importantly, fracking in the United States is very important and acts as a bridge to the future. While it may be argued that hydraulic fracturing is not beneficial to the economy and harmful to the environment, fracking in the United States should not be banned because fracking is not only imperative to the growth of jobs and the economy, but it also does not put the surrounding environment in danger.

Over the past decade oil and gas producers have increasingly used hydraulic fracturing also known as fracking to extract oil and gas from the earth. Most people believe fracking is a new process but it has been around for over 100 years. Modern day fracking began in the 1990’s when George P Mitchell created a new technique by combining fracking with horizontal drilling. Since then, U.S. oil and gas production has skyrocketed. But the “new” perception of fracking leads people to incorrectly believe that fracking is temporary and that it somehow harms the environment. The truth is fracking is a reasonable energy solution if oversight and safeguards are used. In the last ten years fracking has improved conditions in the U.S. in three

In recent years, the subject of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking has been a constant subject of interest in the news media. The pros and cons of fracking are passionately debated. However, the public should become educated on the subject of fracking prior to choosing a side of the argument. In the scholarly article, “Super Fracking,” published in 2014, by Donald L. Trucotte, Eldridge M. Moores, and John B. Rundle, a detailed description of fracking is provided, followed by their analysis of current issues surrounding the controversy. According to Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle, fracking saves the consumer money. The wellhead cost to produce natural gas in January of 2000 was two dollars and sixty cents per one thousand cubic feet. At an alarming rate, the cost at the wellhead to produce natural gas had risen to eight dollars per one thousand cubic feet by January of 2006. Comfortingly, the wellhead cost dropped to two dollars and eighty-nine cents by the end of 2012. Impressively, gas production increase and price decrease over the time period are a result of fracking. In their article, Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle describe in great detail that hydraulic fracturing, most commonly referred to as fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth to fracture the layers of rock so that a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the oil or natural gas inside. This method of fracking has been used commercially for the last fifty years.

Fracking has become a highly controversial and publicized topic in recent years due to rising concerns into the potential benefits and consequences of using hydraulic fracturing to retrieve natural gas and oil reserves. With concerns over water pollution, mismanagement of toxic waste and irreversible environmental damage mounting, the practice of fracking has

Fracking is preeminent problem, affecting the environment and communities of Virginia. King George and the Rappahannock River are especially being affected by the fracking activity in Virginia. Because the people of these areas are riddled with problems, fracking should be regulated closely. This should be done for the safety of the residents of King George and surrounding areas. Fracking endangers our communities, the environment, and our food and water sources, which is why is should be put to a stop.

Victoria Sandlin Professor Sharifian Government 2306-73434 15 April 2017 Sanctuary Cities Local government has been under attack lately in Texas; local control has an importance to the people attached to it that state government can’t compete with. Local control has been an effective way for getting Texas resident’s messages across to state control. The people of cities and counties greatly influence local control by advocating about the importance of certain powers, for example, fracking. Fracking has been known and proven to increase earthquakes in Texas, creating an importance to the Texan people that fracking is acknowledged and dealt with accordingly by the state government. Many are reaching out to local and state governments

In the article, “The truth about fracking,” Chris Mooney analyzes the effects of fracking by big companies looking to extract natural gas. Fracking is done by drilling deep underground, even 5000 feet at times, and shooting high pressure water loaded with chemicals to extract gases that serve as energy. The U.S. has been fracking for about 65 years and there is enough gas in U.S. soil to last many decades to come but there are many setbacks.

In the United States, the people who are most likely to protest are active in protecting the environment or they live in a forest or river area that may be directly affected by any fracking happening there. People are against fracking because they do not like the pollution it can cause as well as believing some studies showing that it could lead to earthquakes. Many are concerned about the possible contamination of groundwater resources from the chemicals and water used to in the process of fracking. Many people do not want to give up their land for the government to use for fracking even if they receive compensation because the compensation is often less in value than the land they are sometimes being forced to give up to the government. Some people may like it because if

In the modern world, we have few similarities to our ancestors. However, there are a few aspects of our culture that have lasted through the centuries. One of the most prominent is our constant use of symbols and pictures to convey complicated messages. One of the reasons for this is the fact that pictures can touch our emotions in a way that few things can. This interaction with emotion is especially useful in arguments. The picture taken to protest fracking used this knowledge to strengthen their argument that fracking for oil is harmful because of contamination the process leaves behind.

In “Fracking” authors Michael D. Holloway and Oliver Rudd cover the technology and methods of hydraulic fracturing while explaining the consequences it has on our health, agriculture, and the planet. The two set out to expose the truths and fallacies regarding impacts of the controversial topic. Throughout the book excerpt, the authors reiterate their goal of not making false claims; “the goal is to educate and share insight.” The authors work to relieve the public of common hydraulic fracking related misconceptions brought on by the media. While the majority of citizens opposed to fracking report contamination to their water source and air, the authors’ collected studies reveal that these problems are not unique to fracking; they occur whenever

Following the release of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report on their study of the effects of the fracking industry to ground water, the New York Times published the article titled “Fracking has not had a big effect on water supply, EPA says while noting risks.” The article conveys to the readers on the release of the study and gives opinions of the report’s findings from both sides of the fracking debate. In order to review the content of the article, the specifics presented in the article were compared to those cited in “Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water?” by Gordalla et al. This scientific paper had been released two years before the EPA’s report and had also assed the

Last year alone, oil and gas companies put hundreds of millions of gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the earth. Many of these fluids were found to contain harmful chemicals such as carcinogens- substances that directly cause cancer. This is why hydraulic fracking has been the topic of heated debate over the past few years. This process of drilling for natural gas has become increasingly popular over the past decade, and has in turn produced many questions about the safety of its wells and the chemicals that are used in drilling. Under current regulations, hydraulic fracking is permitted to be conducted at drilling sites that are located very close to residential areas. The chemicals used in the drilling process have been leaking out of wells, and have contaminated drinking water for some communities. In addition, it pollutes the air by putting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Concerned about the safety of fracking, cities such as Longmont have shown great opposition to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA)’s regulations. In fact, Longmont citizens voted to put a ban on fracking within city limits in 2012. This ban has been met with retaliation from COGA, who sued the city because of the ban. If fracking isn’t allowed to be banned by cities that don’t want it, then the regulations need to change in order to make the practice both prosperous and safe for the community.

The global crisis surrounding energy needs grows in severity as time goes by and in order to solve it, scientists have created the innovative solution known as hydraulic fracturing (Source 5). Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as “fracking,” is a process that injects water, chemicals, sand, and other materials into layers of shale. The injected mixture cracks the layers of shale, releasing trapped natural gasses that can be collected (Source 1). Fracking occurs deep under the surface of the earth, miles below the groundwater that is accessed from drinking-water wells. In the mid-2000s, “fuel prices were rising rapidly” (Source 5). Hydraulic fracturing was a cheap solution that not only brought the world out of a state of emergency but made oil prices drop. The new method of gas collection grew the oil and gas industry, benefiting people all around the world. Fracking is a cheap, effective solution to global needs, but is under attack from skeptics who worry about environmental hazards. The claims against fracking not only have no real evidence but also risk destroying the jobs in the oil and gas industry as well as support for energy needs. Hydraulic fracturing is not only a cheap but a safe method that supports global needs surrounding both energy and jobs.

Fracking is bad they need to find a better way to mine for oil without hurting anything or human.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process used in nine out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States, where millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are pumped underground to break apart the rock and release the gas. Scientists are worried that the chemicals used in fracturing may pose a threat either underground or when waste fluids are handled and sometimes spilled on the surface. The natural gas industry defends hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, as safe and efficient. Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-industry non-profit organization, claims fracking has been “a widely deployed as safe extraction technique,” dating back to 1949. What he doesn’t say is that until recently energy