Fracking And Its Effects On The Environment

the desire to achieve independence from foreign energy sources” (Ben Harris). “The environmental safety of fracking has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, they say, and the industry has a poor track record”(Ben

This is even more important because so many Americans lost their jobs as oil and gas production, "with the number of employees in oil and gas with the number of employees in oil and gas extraction shrinking by over 50 percent to 118,400 in 2003" (Hassett and Mathur). Americans were losing jobs in gas production starting from the early twenty-first century due to the fact that "easily tapped oil reserves grew scarcer and domestic oil production declined", until improvements in fracking for shale gas created more jobs(Hassett and Mathur). The jobs fracking creates is much needed to boost the sagging American economy, but even more important to the economy is the gas produced.

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.

Therefore with resources becoming scarce humanity needs to extract the most from what the earth has. In fact from adding gasoline to your vehicle, to power plant facilities using natural gas instead of burning coal to power homes, to computes and cell phones, almost everything in our lives depend on an oil based product and fracking is the solution for the depletion of fossil fuels. Three controversial issues with hydraulic fracking are nearly everything people use daily has a petroleum based product, contamination of drinking water also the surrounding soil, and the financial impact on the economy. Many people in America do not realize the positives that comes with fracking. It is a great way to help the economy in the United States. Fracking decreases the price of all petroleum products including the price in gas. When gas prices decrease it allows other products such as food, plastics, and other petroleum goods to also go down in price. With these savings being passed down to the consumers it makes the cost of living in America much easier for many people who are living with a minimum wage budget. Minimum wage going up in Oregon and gas prices declining creates a stir in people making them spend more and builds consumer confidence on what is spent. In turn this rapid spending creates a boom in the American economy. With fracking producing nine million barrels a day and decreasing prices by forty five

Although the process of Fracking seems reasonable because it is something we use in our daily lives for cooking food, heating homes, and amongst other things, the question remains whether it is an actual positive or negative to not only us (not even a question) but to the environment? When looking at the pro side one main reason would be the additional access to gas and oil fracking would give us since “many scientists believe we only had a few years left to use fossil fuels before they ran out” (2015). The second positive effect for us would be the lowering of taxes. With more accessibility to gas and oil it wouldn't be such a demand allowing gas for cooking to lower as well as petroleum for cars. Lastly, it can create a

Researchers say they found elevated levels of these chemicals, known as endocrine disrupting chemicals, in surface water and groundwater samples collected in the state's Garfield County where more than 10,000 gas wells exist (Mosbergen, 2013). A single well requires up to 7 million gallons of water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives. These additives include lubricants, biocides, scale and rust inhibitors, solvents, foaming and de-foaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers (Royte, 2012). At almost every stage of developing and operating an oil or gas well, chemicals can be introduced into the environment. While many people get sick from drinking water that turns out to be contaminated by fracking, cancer has not been proven to be caused by this but people living near a fracking well have been more likely to get

The implementation of fracking has had a dramatic economic impact on the United States. The use of fracking in the last decade has increased the production of natural gas from shale formations by 10 times. (Issues) This has resulted in the United States moving more toward natural gas and away from coal to fulfill its energy power needs. In fact, one of the largest production growth areas of

Another reason why the United States must make fracking illegal is because it can have a negative effect on water sources. During fracking, the fluid, which consists of over 596 toxic chemicals, is pumped into the ground, soon after, once all of the gas is extracted from the operation, some of that fluid stays deep underground, and becomes increasingly toxic as it comes picks up radioactivity, or other underground contaminants (White). These fluids can sink into aquifers and turn water into a noxious mix, even the water that comes back up is almost untreatable after coming in contact with these chemicals (Griswold). Although the dangers are well known, it is no surprise that water sources have already been contaminated due to inattentiveness.

Fracking has actually changed out future as we know it, and has made it possible for many things. Fracking will make the world run on natural fossil fuels for much longer, which is also better for the environment and us. In 2015, the U.S. reached its all time high in oil production in 14 years and is only expected to continually rise. Oil production in the U.S. is one of the main sources of jobs for people living in the U.S. (Nunez, 2013). Fracking is a good way to employ U.S. citizens and is also a good way to get natural ways of oil production. As we all

One of the strongest arguments in favour of fracking is the reduction in CO2 that would occur with increased fracking. As of 2013, coal provided approximately 40% of the world’s electricity needs and provides 29% of the total world energy supply with oil being the largest at 31%. Coal-fired power plants are responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990, and have the highest ratio of CO2 output per unit of electricity out of all the fossil fuels. These emissions cause effects worldwide; acid rain, air pollution, toxic waste, to name a few. It is estimated that by replacing coal with gas from fracking, CO2 emissions would be reduced by more than 50%. This massive reduction in carbon emissions would have a global impact, resulting in unprecedented reductions in the effects of climate change. Allowing fracking is a fundamental advance in the efforts to reduce global warming; with this in mind fracking should be allowed and in this case it would benefit everyone when considering the reduction in CO2 emissions. However this poses an issue, if fracking was widely used then CO2 emissions may decrease but there would then be a halt in research and implementation of renewable energy. In some areas where fracking has become more prominent the price for the fuel has fallen; making it a cheaper alternative to expensive renewable energy. Fatih Birol, chief economist for the IEA, aired this concern, ‘Renewable energy may being the victim of cheap gas prices if governments do not

The fracking industry in its entirety, although surrounded by a shroud of controversy, is an economic stimulator that many do not acknowledge. The potential replacement of coal for efficient and clean energy would not be possible if it weren’t for the utilization of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, and horizontal drilling. To consider fracking as only a danger to the environment would be an overstatement while saying fracking only provides natural gas and nothing else is an understatement. It’s important to consider all of the potential benefits that fracking gives to the economy and how its minor environmental destruction could lead to an economic reconstruction. Although fracking has a negative connotation with most people,

Fracking is often looked down upon by environmental experts, but for what reasons? Is this because fracking uses a lot of water? Or is it because of environment concerns? To get the full story, one needs to dig past some of the exaggerations used by environmentalists to demean the massive industry. Many individuals claim that fracking uses to much water, but it only uses a small percentage of the water used in many other industries. Also, fracking provides massive amounts of the U.S.A’s energy. The process of Hydraulic Fracturing does not use too much water, and is a very efficient way for the U.S.A. to get energy.

Fracking also does us some good things to bolster our oil/natural gas standing in the world economy as well as nationally. As of now, hydrofracking has the potential to push our oil and natural gas supply beyond what it is now(Pros and Cons of Fracking) and possibly create a surplus that will last decades. Like other big industries, it creates much-needed jobs that millions of people will need to be able to sustain themselves(Pros and Cons of Fracking). While it is unfavorable among the people, it is, indeed, buying time for the renewables to develop to a point where they can be put into place and steadily replace fossil fuels as a whole(Pros and Cons of Fracking). Natural gas plants could replace coal powered plants and reduce carbon emission

Where this agreement usually ends, however, is with the question of quality control refining processes from my viewpoint. Anotherwords, what control measures are enforced to ensure all contaminants are entirely removed to guarantee a high level of quality assurance and security of the petroleum sectors within the nation’s infrastructures? Are there residual contaminants affecting the quality of fuel supplied to the nation’s energy consumers? From a preceding viewpoint, it can be related to the Colorado Floods that occurred in September 2013. Even the prevailing thought of hazardous waste introduced to the Colorado geographical landscape does not eliminate the second and third order affects imposed on the nation’s petroleum pipeline infrastructure by way of corrosion, introducing chemicals into the pipeline arteries through small cracks that may extend beyond Colorado, an implication that cannot be ruled out. Water contamination prevention-or across the board programs-from the negative effect of hydraulic fracturing should be an expectation from petroleum energy producers. Moreover, it reminds us of an infrastructure security vulnerability, which is not often specified, when hydraulic fracturing is correlated to the role water functions through the conventional petroleum refining process, along with vast arrays of petroleum pipelines that exist across the nation’s geographical landscapes. These concerns should be brought