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.
Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction (Erich Fromm). Introduction Fracking is a complex political topic; nonetheless, fracking is showing a positive impact on the United States economy and leaving a harmful footprint behind the environment. In addition,
Hydraulic fracking has been known to release ‘more than 650 chemicals”( source 3), because of this people who are living ‘near these wells fear their health may be harmed” ( source 3). Even though hydraulic fracking has not caused any known health problems there is still the threat that could come soon when more and more well build up. This could also harm the wildlife and could cause their habitat to be destroyed.
This debate covered the controversial issue of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The two sides that can be taken within this debate are, Bruce McKenzie Everett’s side or John Rumpler’s side. Everett believes that hydraulic fracturing is completely worth it, due to the fact that the economic benefits outweigh the negative impacts on our environment. While Rumpler argues that there are very crucial tolls fracking is taking on our environment, and also our health. Throughout the article there are 6 question proposed to each person. The first, and maybe most important, question asked is ‘is fracking safe?’ Everett responds first by saying that nothing in the world is entirely safe, and then continues to nullify the multitude of threats fracking
If the practice of fracking continues without the necessary regulation and management to construct the infrastructure required for extraction, transportation and consumerization, the practice has the potential to generate serious problems.
It is true that these "vast deposits of natural gas" are "large enough to supply the country for decades" and allow the United States not to be as dependent upon foreign sources of energy (Gas drilling: The story so far, 2013, Pro Publica). However, "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" (What is hydraulic fracking, 2013, Pro Publica). In 2008, an EPA study stated that the practice posed no danger to drinking water (Kelly 2012). However, since
In fact, animals are dying due to exposure of fracking. In Louisiana, 17 cows died from an hour of direct exposure to hydraulic fracturing fluid. Plus, 60 cows had been exposed to a creek that had wastewater from fracking dumped in. 21 of those cows had died, 16 of those cows failed to produce calves, that following spring. Not to mention earthquake rates are going up. From 1967 to 2000, there was a steady rate consisting of 21 earthquakes per year. Beginning in 2001, is when shale gas and other oil companies began to gain popularity, because of this earthquake rates grew by 188 per year.Equally important, half of the nation is experiencing a water drought. Fracking uses a large amounts of water to get the oil and gas out of the ground. 72 trillion gallons of water each time to be exact. As shown above, fracturing causes major
Fracking does have economic gains, but, it also has environmental down sides. Fracking provides hundreds of jobs for Americans and increases revenue for the economy. In North Dakota the unemployment rate was down to 2.6 in 2013. That’s all good but at what cost to the environment that these new workers live in. when the fracking process is at the actual stage of creating cracks toxic chemicals including methane leach into nearby groundwater and soil. 50%-60% of the toxic fracking fluid is left in the ground; this poisonous fluid that is left is not biodegradable. Then the waste leftovers are “left in open air pits to evaporate, and release harmful VOC’s (volatile organic compounds) into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain, and ground level ozone.” ( bib 5) (bib 4,
There has been a recent push to develop unconventional ways to obtain fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas in the United States and as well as over seas. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has come into play recently and there is much controversy over the developed methods of obtaining oil and gas. Supporters for fracking have claimed that the new technology will spark an economic growth with jobs, as well as an alternative energy source, but there are also risks that go into fracking, which citizens of the surrounding areas are opposed because fracking can have long lasting and hazardous effects not only on the environment, but on the people in the surrounding community.
Fracking is a relatively new way of retrieving oil and natural gases from shale rock and other natural resources that reside in the earth’s core, using air and water together. Thus far it has been proven to be a quicker alternative to oil well drilling compared to conventional drilling methods. Oil and gas companies are still learning about the side effects of this elaborate process day by day. Despite a few side effects that have been discovered within the process, fracking has been very efficient and beneficial. As stated in, “Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Key Issues”, “Fracking saves lives, and it saves them right now and not at some indiscernible date well into the future”. (http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/)
Fracking is hurting homeowners and communities. Fracking is turning neighbors against each other. One could be getting paid thousands of dollars to frack on their own property while both of them share the pain equally. Many homeowners who live close to a fracking pad, even people who
Distinguishing Frack from Fiction: The Value and Limitations of the Hydraulic Fracturing Debate in the United States It has long been known that large amounts of natural gas reside in deep layers of sedimentary rock such as shale. However, this gas could not be extracted until recent years due to previous
The BP oil spill has offered a moment for reflection for leaders around the world about their most basic beliefs. To many people, the BP oil spill has brought home the idea that future corporate leaders must develop personal ethical standards for making decisions that go beyond just a financial calculation. There are plenty of business practices that are legal, but fall short in being ethical. But I believe being ethical does pay off, slowly and steadily. You may lose some opportunities, but your reputation and self-perception is
In 1908, BP was founded under the name Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1954 they changed their name to British Petroleum and merged with Amoco in 1998. (BP Public Website, 2010) “The Texas City Refinery is BP’s largest and most complex oil refinery... It was owned and operated by Amoco prior to the merger of BP and Amoco.” (Michael P. Broadribb, 2006) Throughout their history, there have been a number of accidents that have been caused by negligence and disregard of safety precautions. Unfortunately many lives have been cut short or seriously injured as a result. My research will focus on the 2005 Texas City Oil Refinery Explosion. I will attempt to look into the ethical implications that surrounded this disaster before and after the event and suggest what BP could have done to prevent the incident then and in the future.
In the month of April 2010, Deepwater Horizon exploded, killing 11 workers and releasing oil from the well into an ocean. This paper will discuss BP management, ethical and social behavior. BP along with a few of its partners Transocean and Halliburton was involved in the gulf oil spill. The explosion of the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon was the root cause of the oil spill. This paper will focus on BP organization behavioral issues that caused the economic, environmental, and human losses. The research further focuses on what BP leadership could have done as a precautionary measure using highest ethics and management behavior.