Fracking Argument Essay

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

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.

Going through the Shapiro Library on SNHU Wedsite, I found a few great articlesabout the drilling going on in North Carolina called Fracking. The first article that I foundis titled, “ Fracking Fight Advances in North Carolina” by Sarah Ferris. The secondresource I found that had a lot of great information and facts is titled, “ North Carolinawants in on Fracking Game” by Reid Wilson. I found these two articles very interestingbecause they both are telling the pros and cons of fracking and what the government’splan is with the drilling.The article written by Sarah Ferris, titled “Fracking Fight advances in NorthCarolina” stated the concern of what drilling in North Carolina will do to the surroundingenvironment. Ferris stated,” The backlash

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, consumers are experiencing a significant amount of savings due to the overwhelming supplies of oil; thus, the revolution in new technology is triggering an improper fracking system that contributes to airborne pollution and water contamination. Higher authorities should implement the concepts of sustainability and ethical views of large corporations and businesses to protect the consumer’s safety.

The issue of whether we should continue fracking without research has been widely debated around the world. The issue is important because it has fundamental environmental concerns and economic questions about the process of hydraulic fracturing. “Fracking” is the process of penetrating down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is absorbed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand, and chemicals are then inserted into the rock with compression which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well. Fracking fluid, which can be polluted with heavy metals like arsenic, known human carcinogens, has seeped into local waterways and polluted groundwater. People who live near fracking wells have a heightened danger of developing cancer, asthma, and other serious ailments associated with inhaling or ingesting the toxic chemicals involved in the fracking process. Countries approach fracking and researching much differently from each other. The injection of fluid into shale beds at high pressure to extract petroleum resources has been happening across the United States of America at rapid pace. By 2003, a gigantic public relations campaign was launched to lobby Congress to pass what is

The PR firms expound the virtues of natural gas and would have us to believe “the negative side-effects caused by fracking are insignificant” (Larson 2). They rattle off information on how natural gas is a clean burning source of energy and how it is now responsible for 30% of electricity production, as well as heating in half of the homes in U.S.; therefore lessening our dependency on foreign suppliers. All positives attributes, granted, but at the end of the day fracking is a business; big business whose primary focus is keeping their shareholders happy with increase revenue. Unfortunately in their quest to make the almighty dollar, they are putting human lives as well as the environment at risk with the use of chemicals that are toxic, some are known carcinogens. To add insult to injury, the government, who is supposed to protect the interests of all, as opposed to the interests of a few, granted the energy companies an exemption from the laws meant to provide protection to humans as well as two irreplaceable resources, water and air. Granting this exemption is a clear indication that public health and the preservation of local ecology were less of a priority than making a profit.

According to the results that were found 25% of people have heard of the term fracking but have don’t fully know what it is and what some of the effects of fracking is. As can be seen in the graphs provided about on 30% of people know that chemicals used for fracking can cause cancer and 15% know that infertility and birth defects are results of fracking. Of the 70% of people that know fracking pollute the environment more than 50% percent of them stated that chemicals used are able to contaminate water and hence pollute the environment. When asked if they know whether or not fracking is a contributor to air pollutions 95% of them said no, showing that these people are not aware of the fact that fracking is something that is contributing to climate change. A final questions of whether they think the government should allow for fracking being done,

To environmental advocates and opponents of fracking, the process is more than dollars and cents. On a rudimentary level, the oil and natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing are fossil fuels, and thus harmful to the environment in comparison to renewable, clean sources of energy such as solar and wind power. These renewable energy fields are likewise capable of bolstering American energy production and independence and creating high paying careers. Moreover, research suggests that fracking practices could cause serious methane leaks, canceling out the supposed reduction in greenhouse gas

Natural gas is the transitional fuel that is cleaner than coal and oil that has been experiencing a boom in the United States for the last few decades. Natural gas is most familiar to us in the form of heating and cooking on gas ranges. It is abundantly available and modern technology has made it much more accessible and cheaper than other energy sources. Hydraulic fracturing, known short as fracking, is the combination of technology with water and chemicals, and high pressure, that breaks through shale rocks to capture energy. The Climate One podcast titled “ Fracking Boom,”explains America’s recent obsession with fracking, surrounding its history, economic stimulus, construction, and community opposition among other issues. Presenting the talk were Russell Gold, author of The Boom: How Fracking Ignited American Energy Revolution and Changed the World, Mark Zoback, professor of Geophysics at Stanford University, and Trevor Houser, co-author of Fueling Up: The Economic Implications of America’s Oil and Gas Boom. The three guest speakers shared their expertise on how the fracking boom can power America’s economy, but can only be successful if the process in making the wells for fracking, are done along guidelines within the regulations.

energy sector has been fracking; this drilling technique has allowed the United States to become the world’s largest oil and gas producers. However, environmentalist, environmental advocates, and citizen groups maintain that fracking poisons drinking water, causes cancer, and causes irreparable environmental damage. Environmental advocates use the word fracking like an expletive to generate opposition and revulsion “to what they say is a nasty process.” Even the cult sci-fi television series “Battlestar Galactica” used the industry word as a filler for a much harsher “F-word,” even though it had “nothing to do with oil and gas.”

In America, fracking has brought a fast development on oil and gas evolution. This development has introduced fracking closer to where people reside, which in return led to serious public health problems and affected the environment due to the extended exposure to contaminants and chemicals. New researches has also revealed the significant health impacts of fracking on humans and animals living closer to fracking operational sites. Hence, its negative effect outweighs the positive due to the associated imminent hazards on health and on the environment. Because it toxifies everything (living or non-living) in its surrounding and has a severe impact on public health, farm animals and

Fracking is the nickname for Hydraulic fracturing and a type of drilling that has been used since 1950. Today, fracking is the United States most reliable source of natural gas and oils. Fracking consists of safely tapping shale rock and other tight-rock formations by drilling 1-2 kilometres or more below the surface before slowly turning horizontal and then continuing several thousand feet more. One fracking site can have a number of wells. Once the well is drilled, the drill is removed and the well hole is made solid.

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.

Wenonah Hauter who campaigned against the electricity free trade in the 1990’s, contends that the hurry to fracking causes a serious threat to the environment and is hazardous to the future of human health. Frackopoly shows the historical beginning of Fracking and the new advancement of technologies that made this procedure feasible. The book also explores the toxins that are exposed to the different water sources that surround these oil fields, and also “sacrifice zones” the release of dangerous solar radiation from “ deep inside shale depositions”. Frackopoly also investigates the interesting means that have supported fracking like; leading environmental groups, and examines the commercial advantage of companies. This book gives a new outlook