Fracking the Good and The Bad In the essay, “Hope It’s in Your Backyard,” by Neil deMause, he wrote about the positive and negative factors of fracking and its effect on the world. The ramifications of fracking could be devastating to the earth with regards to natural gas and oil. It is debated that fracking, in the United States, would stimulate economic growth, lower gas prices, create more jobs, and make our country independent for oil and natural gas. The effects of burning fossil fuels is negative to the earth’s climate and the cause of some pollution. Natural gas is cheaper, but its effect on our ecosystem may be devastating.
Why is fracking dangerous? During the fracking process natural gases are realized into the well where they are drilling often contaminating the nearby groundwater with methane gases and chemical toxins. After the fracking process the waste fluid is evaporated releasing volatile organic compounds causes acid rain, contaminated air, and ozone at
There are two sides to every argument and hydrofracturing is no different. Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist and producer of FrackNation, uses logic to convince viewers that fracking does not pose environmental concerns. Josh Fox however, employs a multitude of logical fallacies as well as arguments based on emotions in an attempt to convince the audience that fracturing is bad for the environment. McAleer created his film to refute this opinion. Ultimately, Phelim McAleer’s documentary made a better argument than Josh Fox’s documentary.
My general overview of this article is the methods used to obtain fossil fuels is hurting people and nature all around the world. People are beginning to come to a realization about how fracking is harming the world. However, people in cities like “Buffalo, New York, Pennsylvania, and the author’s hometown
Prior to watching Gasland 2 and Truthland, I am familiar with the term “fracking” but never took the time to look into it. After watching these two films, I realized how fracking is a controversial topic in the world of environmentalists. These two very different films explain how fracking is effecting the environment around us. Before explaining further into these films, we need to know what fracking really means. Fracking is “a process by which the rock is split so that natural gas can flow to the surface,” defined by Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University.
FRACKING AND ITS CRITICISM Since the mid-80s, The First Nations and their leaders have raised numerous concerns about the failure of the government and industries in Canada to properly consult them before developing any of their lands. Fracking is a technique used in stimulating the fracturing of rocks through the use of pressurized liquid. The fluid used comprises of hot water, sand, and proppants that are thickened using appropriate agents. The fluid enters the deep-rock and makes it possible to have natural gas, petroleum and brine flow up. If the pressure is removed, the grains in the proppants are capable of keeping the fractures while open.
Fracking fluid not only contains chemicals that have been known to cause cancer, but it also contains a number of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs have been linked to sex changes in wildlife and contaminated water have also caused fish deaths. Over 100 are EDCs that have been linked to respiratory, gastrointestinal, neurological, and reproductive conditions. These evidences are confirmed that fracking can cause species to die and to become sick with just touching the water or the air. You need to know that fracking can have a potential effect on our lovely planet.
It moves tough one more machine which is the frac pump that pumps it down into the earth(“What is Fracking”). Just in case you don't know how it is done. Even though fracking is happening around the country, it is harming our Earth. It happens more in some places like oklahoma and California than other places. Three reasons that fracking should stop it
By fracking for natural gas and shifting from coal to natural gas power generation plants, we could benefit economically, save our environment, and save millions of gallons of
I am really neutral on the issue. I know there are benefits to fracking for natural gas. It is better for the climate than fossil fuels, and it is cheaper. What I do not know is the extent of the damages it can potentially cause. It is a relatively new practice, and enough time has not passed to cause justification or condemnation.
In addition, there are more downsides to fracking than just water pollution, and that is the pollution of our environment. The condition of our environment is horrendous when fracking is conducted. To add on to that statement, fracking has caused natural gas leakage into the air, marred landscapes, and many more hazards to our environment. Fracking has already caused pollution to the air, and fracking companies have to remove trees, then that takes away more air from our environment. Trees are vital to Earth’s supply of oxygen, and these companies are just taking the air straight out of the lungs of the people.
It involves high-pressure injections of water and chemicals into rock formations, which in turn release natural gas (Thompson, “Hydraulic Fracturing Should Be Banned”). However, fracking can result in many negative outcomes. For instance, scientists who conducted the earthquake study for Geology discovered that not only did fracking cause the biggest earthquake in Oklahoma, but it also caused more earthquakes in states that hardly experienced any seismic activity (“Wastewater Injection Spurred Biggest Earthquake Yet, Says Study,” The Earth Institute Columbia University). In fact, quakes have hit so frequently in Oklahoma, that state and oil regulators decided to shut down five disposal wells due to the increasing number of earthquakes in a city named Cushing (“Oil Regulators Shut Down Two Disposal Wells After Earthquakes Near Cushing”, State Impact: NPR).
The environment, in which fracturing sites are located, go from clean landscapes to factory wastelands. Bruce McKenzie Everett, a professor of international business at the Fletcher School, states that “There are air pollution problems and earthquakes from the deep-well injections of the wastewater into the gas-producing shale, as well as significant global warming emissions.” On a superficial level, this obviously shows that fracking aids the deterioration of the environment, but will also leave lasting effects on the land and the people residing in it; earthquakes do not make for safe surroundings and air pollution leads to external bodily irritations and possible respiratory disease -- these all contribute to the list of negative externalities. A primary dispute over the allowance of fracking is its water contamination. An article by Think Process states, “Scientists have found elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water in North Texas’ Barnett Shale region — where a fracking boom has sprouted more than 20,000 oil and gas wells….
Our natural resources are at risk every time fracking occurs. Fracking needs to be banned since it is hurting our health and that it drains our natural and limited resources required for us to sustain life. Water is an essential to living and it is a need. Without it we would be dead from the dehydration. Fracking in this case can contaminate it to where we cannot drink it and if we do it can lead to death or a trip to the hospital:
Therefore, fracking will not continue because of its bad reputation. Fracking companies should also list the chemicals used in fracking fluids so that the contamination in water can be reversed. Linda Dong from dangersoffracking.com clearly explains that the underground water that is contaminated is permanent damage. Without knowing the chemicals in fracking fluids, better alternatives to harmful chemicals cannot be found. However, the fracking fluid that is left underground damages the environment that we live in.
