Fracking: The New Energy Rush “Fracking is taking place from sea to shining sea” was a quote used within the documentary that stuck out to me. Prior to this documentary, I had no previous knowledge on the subject; the video made me anxious to learn. Fracking is when a crane goes down approximately two miles underground, which leads to it turning horizontally. After the crane goes horizontally, water, sand, and chemicals are released. This causes breaks and cracks throughout the rocks, causing shale gas to occur. The gas is trapped within rocks in the depth of the undergrounds. Now, fracking is a debated topic where everyone either wants this energy rush or they have no positive attitudes towards it. When I first heard that fracking is a debated topic, I did not understand why people would not like it. I quickly figured it did not affect individuals, …show more content…
First, people are becoming afraid of fracking. This has occurred because fracking was done in the area, but soon after everyone within the area became ill after drinking the water. Another negative about fracking is the companies are reluctant to tell what the exact chemicals are used. I found this suspicious because individuals deserve to know what is happened under and/or around their land. The final negative about fracking is the amount of methane found in water that was around an area where fracking was taking place. The amount of methane was 85%, which is very alarming but can be due to the structures of the wells. When I heard this during the video, I wondered if other places without fracking were tested. Overall, I enjoyed viewing this documentary. I do not have an exact view on fracking, but I am leaning towards the positive aspect. I plan to do more research to answer a few questions I have such as has fracking taken place anywhere without a water issue. I also wonder if citizen will ever be informed on what chemicals are used within the
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.
What is fracking? Fracking is the process of drilling into the ground and releasing a high-pressure water mixture into rocks in order to fracture them and release the natural gases inside. The water mixture consists of water, sand and chemicals. Fracking is beneficial because it lowers the prices of oil and gas, reduces America’s dependency on foreign oil, and reduces CO2 contribution.
Fracking involves drilling a hole into the ground and injecting a combination of fluids and chemicals into the shale. The fracking fluid contains upwards of 600 different chemicals (David). The pressure of the fluid is what causes the shale to fracture, then releases natural gas. That fracking fluid is what is really dangerous, as this is what poses the biggest threat, since many of those chemicals are extremely dangerous and some are completely unknown by the public. After the fracking process is complete, the fracking water, known as flowback, which includes water, chemicals and additives, is either collected and transferred to holding-tanks or it is injected back into the ground for storage
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.
SUMMARY Journalist, Nick Stockton, in the article, “Fracking’s Problems Go Deeper Than Water Pollution,” published in June 2015, addresses the topic of hydraulic fracturing and argues that fracking has more negative consequences than one might think. Stockton supports his claim first by appealing emotionally through a short summary of a recent event involving fracking and also by utilizing evidence to back up his statements. The author’s overall purpose is to highlight outcomes of fracking in order to make more people aware of issues that can arise from this common way of obtaining energy. Stockton utilizes a scientific, yet critical tone in order to create an unbiased article and appeal to his audience’s concern for the well being of the
Paul Galley an accomplished environmentalist enters the controversial debate about Hydrofracking in New York, with his article “Hydrofracking: A bad Bet for the Environment and the Economy” published in the Huffington Post on January 05, 2012. Galley states “Net-Net, fracking is simply bad bet” fracking poses serious risk to New Yorkers. Galley, president of Hudson Riverkeeper has worked for over twenty-five years to protect the environment and support local communities, as a non-profit, public official and educator. This piece continues his devotion to protection of the Hudson River, and the drinking water supply of New Yorkers. Galley effectively convinces his audience through his use of appeals to pathos and logos that hydrofracking will have negative impacts on New Yorkers.
Drilling in Alaska “ In reality drilling is the slowest, dirtiest, and most expensive way to solve our energy crisis”-Lois Capps. This quote explains how there different ways to solve our problems and drilling is not the right way to solve this. In addition to costing a lot of money, it would also destroy animal habitats.
Have you ever thought that fracking should not be allowed and that it could be dangerous for all living creatures. Fracking is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc, so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. The process can become dangerous to the environment and all species on the planet. Fracking can have negative effects on human health. Benzene and methane was found in groundwater and aquifers used for drinking water and benzene has been strongly linked with childhood leukemia.
With the increased scale of fracking in Texas, one might wonder if the oil boom is affecting our water supply. The value of water in Texas is deeply cherished considering Texas’s dry climate and long-standing droughts. One may even wonder if Texas is valuing its water as much as it is its oil. As research furthers, we can begin to weigh the positive and negative effects of oil fracking. By providing overwhelming data on oil fracking
Nicolas D. Loris, who is an economist at the Heritage Foundation, claims fracking helps create new jobs “for geologists, engineers, rig workers, truck drivers, and pipe welders”—such as a plant located in Pennsylvania that will generate about 10,000 new jobs—and also helps create more business for hotels and restaurants (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk,” Chemicals). Using this method of wastewater injections, says Loris, also generates over “600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas… [which] is enough heat to 15 million homes for one year” (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk, Chemicals). He continues his argument by saying that, with the creation of new jobs, hydraulic fracking increases the U.S. economy and makes natural gas available for vital things such as food processing, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk,”
The article Gasland Debunked and the documentary “Gasland” discuss the very controversial topic of “fracking.” According to the beliefs of Josh Fox, fracking is extremely dangerous to the environment and the Earth’s groundwater supply. Contrary to this, the article Gasland Debunking claims that Fox is trying to portray untrue words as facts. In the article Gasland Debunked, there are many pros to how the article was written.
Environmentalists see the movie Avatar as a close depiction of our society's reality with the Alberta oil sands. James Cameron, the director of Avatar, created this blockbuster to bring awareness to a growing issue of Alberta’s oil sands. Undoubtedly, he has achieved this task as this movie shows numerous similarities, but also some differences regarding the current situation with the oil sands. Both show similarities when it comes to cultural and environmental sustainabilities. One environmental sustainabilities that both Avatar and the Alberta oil sands share is that in both situations mining companies decrease biodiversity.
The process of fracking allows humans to extract the colorless, shapeless and odorless gas and oil when it is in its original form, which is later on used for electric power, in industries, in vehicles and in other important worldwide makings. Finally, the significance of fracking in the United States has clearly become leading to macroeconomists to state that the country is changing from a “net importer” to a “net exporter” of oil and gas over the coming years. Table 1: " What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial? - BBC News.
People complain about pollution from factories, cars, global warming, and the melting of polar ice caps, yet many people disregard the dangerous that come with fracking. Fracking is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, and/or boreholes to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. Fracking is causing an epidemic economically and environmentally. Fracking is continuously destroying the earth day by day. From the endless fracking today’s economy is depleting.
While that may be the case fracking companies are recycling fracking fluid and using it in future