As the Chief Executive Officer of EQT Corporation, the decision to shut down down hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) operations or not gives rise to a defining moment. Regardless of the decision I make, some stakeholders will benefit and others will be made worse off which creates a “no right answer” situation. However, a decision must be made, and in this case, I would not cease fracking operations. Through continued fracking operations, EQT will be able to return wealth to shareholders, provide jobs to employees and produce cheaper gas for consumers while only causing minor negative externalities to local residents. This decision not only makes business sense, but it also appeals to my core values of responsibility, loyalty and efficiency. To start, as a corporation with shareholders, I have the responsibility to return as much wealth to my shareholders as possible. By continuing fracking operations, the company will see a growth in revenue which will in turn allow for investors to see a return on their invested capital. If the well was to be shut down, shareholders would see their investment in the company sitting idle and begin to use exit and voice which could be detrimental to the company’s success. Second, as the CEO, I also have the duty to be loyal to those who depend on me for their livelihood. The employees that work at the fracking well depend on the company to provide for them and their families. Simply put, I must to be loyal to them. In keeping the well
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Another significant benefit produced is the amount of jobs one well would create. To frack, hundreds of truckloads of equipment needs to be carried from one place to another. As well as the need to have an individual to watch over the fracking stations and watch for any troubling signs. These people would be important in the safety of the town and the people. Not only would there be hundreds of jobs created to build the wells, but there has to be people to maintain the wells, perform maintenance work on them. In the past years, jobs have been a laborious task to come by, unemployment rates have soared high and people would do anything to earn income. Fracking helped create several jobs, and it still is creating them. Even if it is only for one month out of a year that this individual could work, they would be thankful for an
Strict regulations should be put into place allowing only a certain amount water to be used for each fracking well that is built. Fracking should not be allowed to take place in places where there is low water availability.
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
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.
As much harm as fracking does, why would the workers not just stop? This question brings a good point, but also brings an easy answer. Fracking is taking the easy way out, basically. It is very easy to go to some land, see there is shale gas below, and offer money to drill wells. It is cheap and easy, but it is also dangerous to the health of the earth and the health of people. As mentioned previously, the process is vigorous and the outcomes are putting people in danger of drinking contaminated water and breathing contaminated air. It does not have to be such a forceful task, though. There have been many ways discovered to ease the soiled air and earth. When workers realize they should make sure the concrete they are using is sometimes faulty and it is effecting many families, they will realize it is best to be careful when fracking. After all, the benefits of fracking with care are great, but it must be done right. Hydraulic fracturing should not cause the earth to crack and release numerous chemicals or have mini earthquakes (Gasland), but should be beneficial to everyone, including the
Fracking explained: opportunity or danger. YouTube. N.p., 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. .
Thieves who planned a major cyber attack on banks in 2013 struck while the iron was hot. job applicants need to highlight what they bring to the table. as soon as a director blocks a scene, some actors want to rehearse wearing the shoes that are part of their costumes. employers might want to incentivize employees to reach beyond the low hanging fruit. university of Michigan students illustrated how to improve housing projects on Manhattans lower east side with infill. As an alternative to fracking, some countries are studying the environmental advantages of using methane hydrate- what Atlantic writer Charles C. Mann refers to as "ice you can set on
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,