Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
positivess and negatives to fracking
positivess and negatives to fracking
positivess and negatives to fracking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: positivess and negatives to fracking
The Politics of Natural Gas Production In 2010, roughly 25 percent of the nation’s energy came from natural gas, a “fossil fuel” which American consumers and businesses heavily depend on for transport, light, and heat (Squire 6). As the U.S. population increases, so do the country’s energy needs. Political debate over how the U.S. can meet those needs has slowly simmered for several decades, escalating exponentially when the energy supply grows short. Disputes over just how clean natural gas is, as opposed to coal, dominate headlines and presidential campaigns alike. During the presidency of George W. Bush, a bill exempting oil and gas companies from federal environmental restrictions was passed, thus paving the way for natural gas companies to expand production across the nation utilizing a new drilling technology, enabling easier extraction of shale gas. The drilling process of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has become synonymous with controversy. Why? Fracking involves injecting dangerously toxic chemicals, mixed with large quantities of water and sand, into wells at extremely high pressure, to release natural gas. Promoted by the natural gas industry as a cleaner, safer alternative to coal, the process of fracking has made shale gas plentiful, which sounds to some Americans as the best answer to their energy prayers. However, the negative consequences associated with the extraction of natural gas through fracking, including environmental hazards and threats to public health, far outweigh the benefits. Natural gas drilling can cause water contamination. In his Academy Award-nominated documentary Gasland, filmmaker Josh Fox conducted interviews with families in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Wyoming whose drinking wat... ... middle of paper ... ...Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Rao, Vikram. Shale Gas: The Promise and the Peril. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI, 2012. Print. "Researchers Taking a Look at Health Effects of 'Fracking.'." Nation's Health 42.2 (2012): 14. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Roth, Sammy. "Why Move Beyond Natural Gas." Sierra Club. Sierra Club, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Squire, Ann. Hydrofracking: The Process That Has Changed America's Energy Needs. New York: Scholastic, 2013. Print. United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Natural Science. Washington: Office of Atmospheric Programs, April 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. Weeks, Jennifer. "Energy Policy." CQ Researcher 20 May 2011: 457-80. Web. 16 Nov. 2013. Wilber, Tom. Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortunes and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2012. Print.
6. "The Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracking." G4tv.com. N.p., 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
One benefit of hydrofracking is that it creates job in the current economic slump that America is in. The increase of hydraulic fracturing in the United States directly benefits the citizens, with the number of employees i...
The oil and gas industry has been met with increasing opposition over the years, with fracking and water pollution being some of the most controversial subjects alongside others like pollution, global warming, and claims of corruption. While some anti-frack claims seem like viable arguments, many are the product of misconceptions, an uninformed public. One of the greatest examples of this is Josh Fox’s 2010 documentary GasLand, whose most memorable scene showed a man in Fort Lupton, Colorado, lighting his faucet on fire, blaming it on hydraulic fracturing. After the film was released, among numerous errors it contained, it was found that the water well contained naturally occurring biogenic gas unrelated to oil and gas activity (Energy In Depth).
While methane is not a rare contaminant in drinking water wells, the fracking process seems to allow more methane to seep into the wells. A study headed by Duke University’s Robert B. Jackson, a professor of Environmental Sciences, shows that in Pennsylvania, drinking water wells within one kilometer of fracking sites contain nearly six times more methane than in wells farther away (Banerjee). Methane, no matter where it is contained, is flammable, thereby posing a risk for explosion, which is not good for homes. Reports show that a fracking site in Dimock, Pennsylvania caused methane to leak into a water well, where it detonated, leading to even further contamination of other water wells and homes (Henheffer 30). The domino effect presented here raises fear in critics of fracking, who seek only to stop the process from happen-
Although there have been no intensive studies on the drinking water that could be linked to fracturing practices, many people believe it could be harmful to anyone that consumes the water. The EPA and other strong environmentalists are pushing towards more strict regulations on fracking. Contrary to that belief Dr. Charles Goat stated, “drilling for natural gas in itself doesn't pose a threat to air and water quality, if it‘s done properly.” Research has also been done that fracking has little to no impact on the groundwater. Companies also use safeguards to reduce the threat of air contamination from fracking engines and compressors. Local communities and fracking companies work together to reduce noise, traffic, and other environmental factors of fracking. Water is often recycled to use in other fracturing procedures. Fracking companies are working to make fracking less hurtful to the environment and to the local community (Energy from Shal...
Fracking can cause harm to people, animals, and nature. When they drill into the ground they are pumping chemicals to extract the gas and oil, and this contaminates the water sources around it. “An editorial on gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale in the Post-Star, a newspaper in Glens Falls, New York, contends, “New York state simply can’t take the risk. There are plenty of places to find fuel. It’s not so easy to find a new water supply for 17 million people.”” (Hydrofracking
Because of fracking within our nation we are experiencing an abundance of cheap natural gas that provides power for hospitals, schools, homes and mass transit systems. Because of this sudden growth and development the job market has massive opportunities available for Americans. The regions that have seen the highest growth in these opportunities are in Texas and North Dakota. Additionally North Dakota has seen the highest jump in income by 7.6 percent and the lowest unemployment rate in the United States. However what is ultimately shaping this economic boom is our dependence on fossil fuels. With the ever present dangers to the environment “fossil fuels will lead to increased emissions of greenhouse gases and an acceleration in climate change, the extraction of these materials will involve ever greater cost, danger and environmental risk as energy firms operate deeper and in more problematic rock formations (Klare).” Because of the end of easy access deposits the increase investment of time, money and resources becomes more valuable the deeper we extract and the more we choose to extract the more we pollute. The amount of resources that is invested into a single facking site is staggering. More than 8 million gallons of water can be used in a single frack and laced with over 600 chemicals. Some of these chemicals are known carcinogens and dangerous toxins that cause harm on
"Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Key Issues." Yale Climate Connections. N.p., 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.
Fry, Mathew. Hoeinghaus, David. Ponette-Gonzalez, Alexandra. Thompson, Ruthanna. La Point, Thomas. “Fracking vs Faucets: Balancing Energy Needs and Water Sustainability at Urban Frontiers.” Environmental Science & Technology 2 July. (2012): Pg 7444-7445. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.
Before one can see the devastating effects of fracking, one must first understand how fracking works. As previously stated, the main intent of hydro-fracking is to access and harvest natural gas that lies below the surface of the Earth. Having formed over 400 million years ago by the collision of tectonic plates (Marsa 3), the Marcellus Shale plays host to a gold mine of natural gas, which is currently at the center of the fracking debate in the Northeastern region of the United States. Unfortunately, access...
America is facing an energy revolution. The shift from traditional energy sources such as coal and oil are fading while newer sources are being used to sustain an insatiable thirst for energy. A front-runner is natural gas, a cleanly burning and abundant alternative for conventional energy sources. This nonrenewable resource is found miles underground in prehistoric shale deposits, to show the magnitude “North America has approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet of recoverable natural gas that would supply 175 years worth of natural gas at current consumption rates” locked in these shale deposits (Loris). However, the dilemma comes from how natural gas is extracted from the earth. One of the processes of accessing the natural gas is called Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking”. It is the process of shooting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into cracks in the shale deposits, essentially fracturing the shale that then releases the natural gas (Malakoff).
environmental damage mounting, the practice of fracking has only quietly expanded and profited. This concealed expansion into the nation’s backyard has only
“The Fracking Controversy.” NewsCurrents Read to Know. 28 Jan. 2013: n.p. SIRS Discoverer. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
One of the most heavily fracked areas are small towns in Pennsylvania. Griswold focuses on the amount of fracking wells in this area as well as the issues that follow alongside them. According to Griswold, Pennsylvania alone has over 4,000 wells with an estimated climb of 2,500 per year. Due to the high numbers the E. P. A. has gotten involved to investigate the effects on rivers, streams, drinking water, and human health. Once the investigations began it became clear that not only humans were at risk, but animals were being placed in a dangerous position as
In the 1980’s, Americans thought that the decline of natural gases and oils was an irreversible impact (Davis 178). This led us to be dependent on other countries and pay them to provide us with these goods. However, with fracking being readily available, we can become less dependent on other countries to supply us with what we need (Davis 178). Today, fracking accounts for 56 percent of the natural gas we use and 48 percent of the oil, as recorded by the EPA (Davis 178). Fracking has caused the United States to be not just one of the top producers in the world, but the top producer (Davis 178). Researchers, scientists and even experts believe that fracking will send us on our way to being energy independent (Davis 179).