Fracking Argument Paper

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.

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” isn’t a word that most people are familiar with unless they are well informed or active in local government or natural gas extraction. “Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves extracting natural gas from shale formations underground” (Collier, Galatas, Harrelson-Stephens, 2008). During the process known as fracking, millions of gallons of water are shot underground into shale formations to help bring the natural gas trapped inside the formations to be released so that it can surface and become available for extraction. This is the technique that is used for traditional fracking methods. Although fracking increases the states natural gas production, it also carries some negative side effects that are affecting the state and its people.

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

Fracking has become a nation wide debate and one that doesn’t seem to have an end. The state of North Carolina is one of the most involved areas of the fracking process. “North Carolina is sitting on top of large natural gas reserves (WRAL 1).” For this reason, many natural gas companies come to North Carolina for business. This helps the states economy because it produces more income and creates more jobs. The only problem is that the hydraulic fracking process has a reputation of contaminating local drinking water. This causes controversy with the citizens in cities such as Raleigh. Many cities welcome fracking while others try to completely ban it. The worst problem with fracking is that there seems to be no alternatives for it.

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

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

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,

the positive greatly. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is the process of drilling into

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.

That is more people who live in New York City and in Michigan. Drilling and extraction of natural gas are known to be seriously toxic to humans and animal. A few of the many chemicals are hydrochloric acid, benzene and formaldehyde. Which all have a serious effect for human health and wildlife. Fracking can cause birth defects, cancer, bloody noses, asthma, diarrhea, dizziness, migraines, nerve pain, and skin rashes. Fracking causes earthquakes more and more frequent and the cause is almost certainly fracking and the disposal of wastewater. The earthquakes caused by fracking have not caused much damage yet, but with a call for more drilling. Seismologists are learning more about faults no one knew existed. Fracking has contaminated lots of peoples water some people have complained to be able to light their water on fire because of large amount of methane gas. It has added to the problem of are air

This brings up the first issue against fracking that critics point to, which is the fact that it often occurs near established towns and cities where many live. This would be merely an issue of aesthetic unpleasantry occurring near peoples' homes (paving the way for this issue to join so many others under the theme of "Not-in-My-Backyard"-style public protests) were it not for the fact that the chemicals being pumped into the ground are not just limited to the veins they create, but in fact may seep into groundwater, contaminating it. These two issues, water contamination and the right to private property, are major sticking points when a company wishes to set up a rig near a human population close enough to be affected by it. In 2006, the state of Texas ruled in the case of Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust that damage to any property by or through the act of inducing hydraulic fracturing would not warrant a trespass claim. In 2012, four towns in Pennsylvania attempted to bar drillers from setting up infrastructure at the companies' discretion, with some to be built near homes and schools. Coastal Oil is being used as a precedent case now, but here the local courts ruled in favor of the towns, protecting their zoning rights. Going beyond the fact that oil rigs near homes can create what can certainly be called an unsafe, or at the very least unsightly,