There’s an issue where the underlying science remains a political football, and scientists are regularly challenged and called out personally. Where energy needs and short-term economic growth are set against our children’s health and future. Where the consequences of bad, short-sighted decisions may be borne primarily by a small subset of under-served and undeserving persons. And where the very descriptive terms in the debate are radioactive, words spun as epithets.
We’re not talking here about global warming, and “deniers” versus “warmists.” We’re talking about the game-changing new set of unconventional oil and gas extraction technologies and techniques collectively known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”
Ask the most hardcore
…show more content…
The stench of unknown – even secret – chemicals, sickness, and looming illnesses, and death.
Refereeing these confrontations is no easy thing, and unlike the “settled science” of climate change and its causes, the science of fracking is far from settled. But a review of the research can help clarify some of the chief points of contention.
If there’s a single source plausibly seen as the fairest, most comprehensive, and cogent assessment, it might be the 2014 literature review published in Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources. It’s titled “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking,” authored by researchers affiliated with leading universities and research organizations who reviewed more than 160 studies.
Below are the arguments and synthesized evidence on some key issues, based on the available research literature and conversations with diverse experts.
Air quality, health, and the energy menu
ISSUE: The new supply of natural gas reachable by fracking is now changing the overall picture for U.S. electricity generation, with consequences for air quality.
PRO FRACKING: Increasing reliance on natural gas, rather than coal, is indisputably creating widespread public health benefits, as the burning of natural gas produces fewer harmful particles in the air. The major new supply of natural gas produced through fracking is displacing the burning of coal, which each year contributes to the
There are many articles, studies being done, and organizations fighting for what they think is right. Two organizations involved in fracking are the American Gas Association (AGA) and FracDallas. AGA is a natural gas utility association supporting fracking, its priority is to use natural gas for transportation in order to increase the demand for it. FracDallas “does not oppose gas well drilling” it “opposes unsafe, untested and unproven gas well drilling in densely populated urban areas”
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.
This pursuit toward a greener future and cleaner environment has encouraged many to research fracking and its potential consequences to America.
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
Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, a type of drilling used by oil companies to tap the valuable oil veins located miles below the earth’s surface. Fracking has been the subject of discussion for some time now, not necessarily for its effectiveness, but for its effect on the environment. Fracking has been known to release methane gas into the atmosphere; methane gas is a greenhouse gas and along with gasses like CO2 is one of the gasses that contributes to the warming of the planet. In Louis W. Allstadt’s article “Fracking Contributes to Global Warming” he states that, “methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas in the short term-less
The most dangerous consequence of fracking is that hundreds of chemicals are blasted into the Earth’s crust, which creates cracks in the bedrock. Many times, these cracks lead to an aquifer, in which case, all of the water in the aquifer becomes contaminated with these chemicals (Jackson, 2014). Additionally, when the natural gas is being pumped out of the wells, methane is released into the atmosphere. A study conducted by NOAA found that approximately 4% of the methane is being released into the atmosphere. This same study found that methane pollution increases climate changes because it traps heat in the atmosphere 25 times more than carbon dioxide (Hoffman, 2016). Furthermore, fracking waste wells are the primary cause of the increase of earthquakes in the Central U.S. This is because these wells operate for a longer period of time, which means that they inject more “solid ‘cake’” into the Earth than the actual fracking process (USGS, n.d. and StateImpact, 2017). Finally, recent studies have found that people who live near a fracking site are at higher risk to develop respiratory problems, which is due to the increased levels of pollutants. These pollutants are not only affecting the people who live in close proximity to these sites, but to the workers, as well. The most common type of respiratory problem reported was lung
“In addition to carbon pollution, fracking exploits massive amounts of methane pollution, which drive global climate change. Methane warms the climate approximately 80 times more than the equivalent of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.” This is a big problem which needs to
Although the process of Fracking seems reasonable because it is something we use in our daily lives for cooking food, heating homes, and amongst other things, the question remains whether it is an actual positive or negative to not only us (not even a question) but to the environment? When looking at the pro side one main reason would be the additional access to gas and oil fracking would give us since “many scientists believe we only had a few years left to use fossil fuels before they ran out” (2015). The second positive effect for us would be the lowering of taxes. With more accessibility to gas and oil it wouldn't be such a demand allowing gas for cooking to lower as well as petroleum for cars. Lastly, it can create a
Safe natural gas fracturing or “fracking” is on the rise and our country is benefiting from in on several levels. From meeting energy needs to creating jobs and helping the economy, natural gas is an invisible miracle. Many precautions are taken during the fracking process in order to ensure it is safe as possible. Natural gas is something I work around every day due to the fact I work in the oilfield and the work I do is carried out during a “frac.” Many environmentalist and various people from different scientific fields argue that the benefits are not worth the risk.
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
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
This article tries to advocate fracking by giving insights on how safe fracking is for the environment. To begin with, a brief description is given as to how fracking is done to extract natural gas. Views of Manhattan Institute senior fellow Robert Bryce which compare the CO2 emissions in 2002 and 2012 show a drop of 8% due to surge in shale gas production, which reduced coal usage. Water usage and other resources like land and habitat protection for wild animals has been presented in the article to highlight how fracking is much environment friendly compared to other energy sources, even wind and solar.
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
Fracking has brought the world’s energy supply from a crisis level to a stable supply that supports global energy demands. As energy prices rose and the energy supply slowly decreased, experts began to
Fracking has actually changed out future as we know it, and has made it possible for many things. Fracking will make the world run on natural fossil fuels for much longer, which is also better for the environment and us. In 2015, the U.S. reached its all time high in oil production in 14 years and is only expected to continually rise. Oil production in the U.S. is one of the main sources of jobs for people living in the U.S. (Nunez, 2013). Fracking is a good way to employ U.S. citizens and is also a good way to get natural ways of oil production. As we all