Multinational Business Corporations Gaining More Power in Society

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.

Why are global corporations so powerful? Could it be that they have the monetary power to determine outcomes that benefit them? Could it be that the word global is what makes them so powerful? According to Dicken, “A transnational corporation is a firm with the power to coordinate and control operations in more than one country, even if it does not own them.” (Dicken 115). What Dickens is inferring is that these “global corporations” are big companies that operate in more than one country. They dictate and determine the fate of those countries. Majority of the time these TNC or global corporations are wealthier than the country they reside in. If you think about how the world operates, typically the wealthier a person or entity is; the stronger

As the pace of shale gas drilling has accelerated in recent years, so have environmental concerns. Incidents such as a 2007 home explosion in Bainbridge, OH, the 2008 groundwater contamination on Wind River Indian Reservation in Pavilion, WY, and the 2008 chemical poisoning of an emergency room nurse in Durango, CO, have intensified the debate over regulation of fracking.10 As a result, new laws regulating fracking activities have

The mismanagement of the practice has the potential to create environmental damage such as water contamination, radioactive spills, and increased seismic activity that could cost thousands in dollars in damage. Furthermore, the unintended consequences of fracking can have detrimental effects on the environmental. The potential for water contamination can pose both an immediate and long term risk to environmental stability, including landscape distortion, inhabitability and ecological displacement. This contamination of drinking water can also be detrimental to the human environment, limiting the amount of safe water available for both the residential and commercial human environment. With the increase of fracking, the level of disapproval for the practice has only mounted. Concerns including overconsumption of

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 Delaware River creates a natural boundary between western New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania. The river serves as a recreation attraction and a major source of drinking water for many areas in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. In the upper part of the Delaware River Watershed, oil and gas companies are attempting to drill for natural gas by method of hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking). Many residents in New Jersey have protested the proposition of hydro fracking and have gone to the internet to raise awareness and money to prevent hydrofracking in the Delaware River Watershed with the websites, delawareriverkeeper.org, environmentnewjersey.org, savethedelaware.wordpress.com and keeptapwatersafe.org.

The continuing controversial topic about how fracking can affect our drinking water. Recently, the U.S. EPA has confirmed that hydraulic fracturing does contaminate our drinking water system. According to EPA scientist, Dominic Digiulio, argues that hydraulic fracturing does contaminate drinking water. Eight years ago, in Pavillion, Wyoming, people live in a natural gas basin, complained about the “bad taste and smell in the drinking water” (Vaidyanathan). In Digiulio’s peer studies, he claims that the drinking water are contaminated with chemicals linking to fracking; however, labs cannot see fracking chemicals. The EPA began water testing in 2009, while Digiulio got involved in January

Few issues have recently gotten as much attention as the energy extraction activities involving a controversial procedure called "fracking." As reports of drinking water becoming tainted with fracking fluid flood the news, both oil and gas companies as well as environmental groups are presenting competing "facts" about the effects of drilling on ground water.

“DEC 's own review identified dozens of potential significant adverse impacts of (fracking)” (Krisberg 18). There are some potential impacts in the fracking process, it will bring a lot of health risks to people. The major constituents of produced water are salt content, oil and grease, various inorganic and organic chemicals, and naturally occurring radioactive material. Salt content in produced water makes the freshwater to salt levels up higher than seawater. Oil and grease makes freshwater is getting oily. Various inorganic and organic chemicals are found naturally in the formation or are chemical additives used during drilling and operation of the well, such as benzene and methane. “Many of the fracking additives are toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic” (Howarth, Ingraffea 272). This quote tells us that why fracking is contaminating the drinking water. Benzene are one major concern. “The state of Texas reports benzene concentrations in air in the Barnett shale area that sometimes exceed acute toxicity standards” (Howarth, Ingraffea 273). It shows benzene makes drinking water is getting contaminated. “Methane contamination of drinking water reservoirs has been documented in fracking-rich areas of the US. Leading to dramatic videos of seemingly ignitable tap water” (Benusic, 238). This quote tells us that the drinking water is getting contaminated by Methane is proved already. Radioactive material in

Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) is the process of drilling into the ground and pumping sand, water, and fracking fluid at high pressures in order to extract natural shale gas that was previously unattainable. This process comes with environmental issues: the chemicals from the fracking fluid can contaminate nearby drinking water wells and harm the citizens of that area. Despite the fact that there have been several contaminated drinking water cases reported, there is little being done about this matter. This paper analyzes the available research that asserts why fracking is a dangerous process that should be banned immediately. The intended audience is my peers and instructor, as well as anyone interested in the debacle of fracking-caused water contamination that may come across this piece. As you are reading, I ask that you keep in mind that this is a very perplexing issue that has not been given much of an opportunity for true research and investigation. Therefore, the data discussed has not been officially proven or disproven to be directly related in every way to local fracking. However, the research gathered on the proposed danger of the Hydraulic Fracturing process is solely based on science that has already been proven as well as documented illnesses and symptoms from residents and contractors around or near fracking operation sites.

Fracking promoters say safe hydraulic fracking doesn’t threaten drinking water. They also disprove that the water used in hydraulic fracturing ends up as surface spills. There are three ways reported for waste water disposal including “injecting in permitted disposal wells in accordance with Underground Injection Control Regulations, delivered to water treatment facilities depending on permitting, and reused/recycled” (“Pioneering America’s Energy Future”). These three types of disposals are considered safe as long as agencies are regulating hydraulic fracturing companies carefully. The Oil and Gas Conservation Act makes oil and gas a state priority, allowing companies the legal right to fracture. It is harder to judge whether regulations are actually set in place when government wants to favor the creation of jobs and economic boost rather than worrying about the health of communities affected by

Following the release of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report on their study of the effects of the fracking industry to ground water, the New York Times published the article titled “Fracking has not had a big effect on water supply, EPA says while noting risks.” The article conveys to the readers on the release of the study and gives opinions of the report’s findings from both sides of the fracking debate. In order to review the content of the article, the specifics presented in the article were compared to those cited in “Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water?” by Gordalla et al. This scientific paper had been released two years before the EPA’s report and had also assed the

In December 2011, the federal Environmental Protection Agency concluded that fracking operations could be responsible for groundwater pollution.“Today’s methods make gas drilling a filthy business. You know it’s bad when nearby residents can light the water coming out of their tap on fire,” says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. What’s causing the fire is the methane from the drilling operations. A ProPublica investigation in 2009 revealed methane contamination was widespread in drinking water in areas around fracking operations in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. The presence of methane in drinking water in Dimock, Pa., had become the focal point for Josh Fox’s investigative documentary, Gasland, which received an Academy Award nomination in 2011 for Outstanding Documentary; Fox also received an Emmy for non-fiction directing. Fox’s interest in fracking intensified when a natural gas company offered $100,000 for mineral rights on property his family owned in Milanville, in the extreme northeast part of Pennsylvania, about 60 miles east of Dimock.

Arguments have also been made regarding whether or not fracking plays a significant role in water pollution. According to a study done by the EPA in the Pavilion gas field in central Wyoming, there were several abandoned gas and oil pits found that must have contributed to the pollution in the area. However they also found traces of water pollution in wells 1,000 feet underground that could not have been caused by the gas and oil pits. The EPA concluded that the groundwater contamination found at very far depths had to have been caused by fracking (Lutsgarten 3). This may be so, but several companies are looking for better ways to store the wastewater and maybe figure out how to store the water that is stuck in the ground possibly contaminating

Dr. Farok J. Contractor is a professor in the Management and Global Business department of Rutgers Business School, New Jersey. He has written hundreds of articles on the topic of international alliance and foreign direct investment. “Punching above their weight: the sources of competitive advantage for emerging-market multinationals” is one such article of global interest which has been declared of great value both for the public as well as for policy makers. The prime focus of this article is upon the phenomenon of emerging market multinationals which have swept the world by storm and introduced a whole new way of conducting global leadership and business. These emerging market multinationals are specifically discussed