Fracking : Ethical And Ethical Implications

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.

Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”)1 is already beginning to change the nature of how we approach future energy needs. The processes of fracking also carry environmental risks. This paper is aimed at exploring the ethical, social, and legal issues related to “fracking’. In order to accomplish these tasks, it will 1st be necessary to describe the processes involved in fracking. The technical problems with fracking create a number of ethical, social, and legal problems related to the environment. Some of these issues include land clearing for digging the wells, the impact on freshwater aquifers, and the well bore. Once the well bore is created, around 1-5 million gallons of water is inserted into the shale along with proprietary fluids. It is

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

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

that the technology is environmentally friendly and the threats it is said to pose to the underground water reservoirs do not exist in reality. However, the shareholders agreed with the environmentalists that the concerns cannot just be ignored and needed the companies to disclose the full information about the operations carried out in the fracking process and the chemicals used. Some companies claimed to be abiding by the environmental ethics and, therefore, the disclosure asked is not necessary. For instance, ExxonMobil and Chevron which are large gas producers had urged its shareholders against asking the companies presenting the disclosure of the fracking process. However, 30 and 41 percent of Exxon

Hydraulic Fracturing, also known as fracking, is directly linked to having effects on the environment and the overall public health. The debate on whether or not fracking is too harsh on the environment has been going on ever since the United States has increased its use of this process to obtain more natural resources. Hydraulic fracturing is also directly correlated to having effects on drinking water. The process of fracking includes the injection of water containing other chemicals into the ground to extract natural resources that would otherwise be more difficult to obtain (Hydraulic Fracturing Overview, 2012). Although the process of fracking has resulted in an increase of natural resources, such as natural gas and oil, public health and environmental concerns have arisen. This topic has been the discussion of many people and whether or not there should be some form of government regulation in place, as it is nonexistent to this day. With that said, hydraulic fracturing in the United States has more negative effects on drinking water and the environment over time and should not be used as a means to obtain natural resources.

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

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

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

Hydraulic fracking in the United States is a current environmental hazard that has to be addressed by the American people and by the federal government. Fracking in America has opened up millions of acres of lands that were once not economically viable to produce oil and gas. While the Bureau of land Management has paved the way for hydraulic fracturing on public lands, there is a need for retaliation. Fracking is a dirty method of extracting gases and oils at the price of numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards. The environment is not a means of income when rather it is the capital for future generations.

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

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.

Unfortunately, the extent of the environmental risks that are associated with hydraulic fracturing are largely unknown. According to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, fracking may pose risks to air quality. This ‘wishy washy’ finding was because the studies that were reviewed were not taking into account the long-term, cumulative effects of this extractive process (“Oil and Gas” 2012). The increase in air pollutants, the reports found, were more likely a result of engine exhaust, emissions from diesel-powered pumps, gas that was vented or flared for operational reasons, and unintentional emissions from faulty equipment or storage areas for waste (“Oil and Gas” 2012). Not surprisingly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed also indicated that fracking only might put our water quality at risk. Fracking can cause the contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion, spills and releases of chemicals, or the underground migration of chemicals (“Oil and Gas” 2012). So we have oversight agencies that release reports siting cases that are understudied, yet in the meantime permits are still being

You have probably come across the term 'fracking ' in the news quite recently and perhaps wondered if the reality is as ugly as the word. There is an ever rising body of evidence, that there are inherent and unacceptably high environmental and health risks associated with coalbed methane and shale gas extraction - hydraulic fracturing (fracking). This is fast becoming a global issue happening in our own back gardens, it 's contaminating our water supplies and tampering with mass food production industries. Something must clearly be done about fracking. Today I will express my personal feelings towards this topic and discuss the process and dangers of this industry.