AROKA - 1 ASSIGNMENT BY TUESDAY AT 4 PM EST
TBone6102
tstewart_module_5_rough_draft_121616.docxRunning head: THE PROS AND CONS OF FRACKING 1
THE PROS AND CONS OF FRACKING 10
The Pros and Cons of Fracking
Toni Stewart
Rasmussen College
Author’s Note:
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the two-sided debate of the Pros and Cons of Fracking. Written for Instructor Aisling Kane, on December 16, 2016 for course G328, Human Uses of the Environment.
The Pros and Cons of Fracking
The Controversy
Oil and natural gas are highly essential commodities since they provide energy (fuel and electric) to drive industrial machinery, light up houses, businesses and drive motors among other uses. Oil drilled from the underground is processed to produce petroleum products and diesel which are utilized in operating vehicle engines. Therefore, every country requires oil and gas to maintain continuous economic development as well as steadily increase its revenue and productivity. These products are garnered from underground rocks that require the use of technologically advanced and sophisticated machinery to drill very deep wells into the ground.
Fracking is a process used to extract natural gas and oil from shale rocks situated in great depths. This process incorporates the pumping of massive amounts of fluid with tremendously high pressure into the oil and gas- rich rocks. This research will offer detailed elucidations of information about fracking while reducing its advantages and disadvantages. Herein, a controversy arises between two adversary sides in which one side supports fracking while another opposes it by leaning on the disadvantageous realm of subject matter.
The reason as to why fracking has triggered hot debates on a global scale is that it is highly beneficial and efficient in obtaining vast amounts of oil and gas while at the same time constitutes hazardous effects on the environment and earth’s geography. For instance, fracking has been evidently proven to contribute significantly to earth tremors and quakes. On one side of the controversy, the environmentalists and geologists oppose fracking due to its adversity against the traditional livelihood of wildlife and humanity. They tend to value environmental wellness as an essential aspect than economic development which the other side dearly values.
The Major Players
The major players in this controversy are associated with the advantages and disadvantages of the fracking process and include individuals or parties which have differing ideologies about whether fracking is a good thing or not. The first side bases its arguments on the numerous benefits that fracking brings forth to a country. Some of these include the creation of more job opportunities and reduction in the price of energy. This prospect considers economic development as a highly important prerequisite that should be mandatorily adopted whenever necessary. This side incorporates economists, financial organizations, large corporations (governmental and non-government owned) and industrial sectors such as motor assembly industries (BBC, 2015). In fact, renowned government officials propose fracking to be utilized to secure more energy. For instance, David Cameron, USA Prime Minister showed unwavering support to use the fracking method in drilling oil and gas (BBC, 2015).
On the other side, fracking is seemingly opposed. The key players in this side of the controversy include environmentalists, geologists, biologists and campaigners who opt to protect the environment adamantly. These parties utilize the various drawbacks associated with fracking to support their arguments. They seek to protect the wellbeing of their surroundings since they believe that if destruction to the environment is not barred, the future will have unfavorable climatic conditions such as drought, floods, and storms (Strueman, 2014). Environmentalists have done an in- depth analysis of the matter and have reached a consensus that fracking should end although large bulks of gas and oil can be garnered from the process. They deem the opposition as being oblivious to the probable consequences of polluting the environment in the long run. Moreover, they argue that protecting humanity and wildlife from fracking long- lasting hazards should be a top priority (Strueman, 2014).
Important Facts:
Fracking is also known as hydraulic fracturing. It is a process that is utilized to extract an enormous amount of oil and gas from underground shale rocks. Fracking involves the use of extremely high pumping pressure to force large amounts of fluid into drilling wells to cause the shale rocks to crack at great extent. These wells are dug for thousands of feet from the surface of the earth. The fluids pumped into the wells consist of mixtures of huge volumes of water (millions of gallons) and chemicals meant to catalyze the fracturing process of rock formations. enormous
The chemicals fasten the process by dissolving the stones’ minerals hence making the structures weak and fragile for sufficient cracking. Additionally, the chemicals get rid of bacteria that might block thin fissures within the rocks (Brantley, 2013). 10% to 40% of these chemical mixtures are expelled out of the wells during fracking (Iacurci, 2014). Once these oil and gas rich rocks are fractured, more oil and gasses flow out of them in considerably massive amounts and cracks the rocks to greater extents. This technique of garnering more oil and gas from the wells began in the late 1940s by USA engineers who realized that breaking rocks would yield more oil and gasses to pump out from the underground reserves (GreenGarageBlog.org, 2015).
Conventionally, engineers utilized small explosives to crack up the shale rocks to increase the flow of oil and gasses trapped within their structures. Since its discovery, fracking has been used to extract the valuable commodities from one million wells in America alone. Fracking occurs by digging horizontal caves from the original vertical shafts within the oil and gas- rich rock layers. Horizontal wells facilitate effectual injection of pressurized fluid directly to the long layers of rock hence maximizing amount of fractures within the rocks (Brantley, 2013).
Side One:
On the one side of the fracking controversy, poses the industries, economists, financial organizations, large corporations and a proportion of Americans. They are in supportive of the fracking process or hydraulic fracturing. This side asserts that a country can achieve remarkable economic growth and betterment of livelihood if it has enough energy to run businesses, machinery and drive motors as well as light residential areas. The benefits of garnering immense amounts of gas and oil through fracking are the foundation to this side’s arguments. Due to the essentiality of oil and gas, countries which lack enough supplies are forced to import it them from foreign suppliers. For example, the United States has been purchasing oil from Middle East countries which have numerous oil- rich wells.
Therefore, this side argues that fracking will exponentially increase the amount of oil and gas obtained by a country hence making it energy independent. For example, Fracking gas constituted only 1% of the United States supplies in 2000. Currently, the proportion has risen to 30% of gas supplies come in the United States, and this figure is growing steadily (Howard, 2012). In fact, the country would be exempt from the need of spending considerable amounts of capital and resources to import oil and natural gas. Fracking will offer sufficient energy to prevent undesirable shortages of fuel energy in the future, especially so that the population is increasing dramatically. Another argument to support fracking is that it creates employment. The increase in gas and oil supplies triggers establishment of more companies and gas stations which offer numerous job opportunities. Per statistics, 1.2 million new jobs were created in 2012 in the United States alone. Also, the government gained extra 385 billion dollars from fracking activities which further developed the economy (GreenGarageBlog.org, 2015). This side claims that fracking will propound energy sources that will reduce emissions of harmful gasses such as carbon dioxide.
Side Two:
On the debate’s opposite side, the environmentalists, biologists, and geologists backed up a considerably large lot of citizens have opposed fracking and termed it extremely destructive. Firstly, this side argues that fracking wastes enormous volumes of water which can be utilized to alienate the risks of drought and famine (Wihbey, 2015). Every well that uses fracking to collect oil and gasses requires about 8 million gallons of water to successfully finish one fracturing task. For example, fresh water reservoirs in Michigan were drained off 35 million gallons of water in a single well in the year 2014. This side argues that if fracking isn’t banned, rivers and fresh water lakes will be dried up in the future.
Furthermore, fracking disposes harmful chemicals to the earth’s surface during injection of water and chemical mixture into wells with exceedingly high pressure. These chemicals lead to large- scale contamination of water sources such as rivers and lakes (Sawyer, 2009). In fact, this side claims that energy companies have not put in place proper policies to safely dispose chemicals and prevent them from entering water sources. The United Kingdom has enacted strict laws against fracking for shale gas in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire counties until it is undoubtedly proven to be safe. Environmentalists adopt the government’s rationale for banning fracking which proclaims that it is unsafe for wildlife and humanity.
Geologists have claimed that fracturing of underground rocks in search for more oil and natural gas renders the earth’s crust unstable. Consequently, the surface is made susceptible to earth tremors and earthquakes which destroy buildings, power lines, road networks and pipelines. For example, in 2011, two seismic earth tremors (1.5 and 2.2 magnitude) were experienced in Blackpool due to fracking activities in a well owned by Cuadrilla Company (GreenGarageBlog.org, 2015).
Your Opinion and Rationale
Upon exhaustive scrutiny and evaluation of the arguments from the both sides of the controversy, I stand with the second side. I believe that although fracking will bring remarkable growth in economy and energy independence, we should prioritize the wellness of the environment. If the environment is destroyed and polluted, our future generations will have a hard time surviving on earth. The worst-case scenario is that the earth will be uninhabitable for humans, wildlife, and even plants. Fracking releases highly hazardous chemicals to water bodies which directly kills sea creatures such as fish. Ultimately, people who depend on these water creatures for food and source of income will become subjected to hard situations. Also, they will have no clean water to drink.
These chemicals also contaminate underground water channels/pathways which will risk the health and lives of many people who depend on these water sources (Sawyer, 2009). I believe that if fracking is encouraged, more wells will be dug and the fracturing of underground rocks will increase drastically. Thus, there will be more earthquakes characterized with higher magnitude and intensity in future. In response to arguments presented by the opposition that claims that fracking will improve the economy, I feel that large- scale earthquakes will cause extensive and colossal destruction of major cities in future. Therefore, the profits acquired from fracking will be leveled. Also, encouraging fracking will increase the number of oil wells which will lead to enormous wastage of fresh water. Eventually, fresh water bodies such as rivers and lakes will be dried up. Fishing and irrigation activities will be halted indefinitely hence leading to food insecurity and famine. Those who support fracking should consider the future and forecast these devastating aftereffects of fracking that will be tough to resolve.
References
BBC. (2015, December 16). What is fracking and why is it controversial? Retrieved December 6,
2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401
Brantley SL, M. A. (2013, March 13). The facts of fracking. Global Opinion, 13. Retrieved
December 6, 2016, from New York Times
http://www.nwsofa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/New-York-Times-The-Facts-on-
Fracking-1.pdf
GreenGarageBlog.org. (2015). List of top 9 pros and cons of fracking. Retrieved December 14,
2016, from http://greengarageblog.org/list-of-top-9-pros-and-cons-of-fracking
Hazen and Sawyer. (2009). Impact assessment of natural gas production in the New York City water supply watershed 5.
Howard, J. (2012, January 10). Fracking pros and cons: Weighing in on hydraulic fracturing.
Green. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/fracking-pros-cons_n_1084147.html
Iacurci, J. (2014, September 12). www.natureworldnews.com. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9011/20140912/the-pros-and-cons-of-fracking.htm
Strueman, H. (2014, November 26). The Pros and Cons of Fracking? Environment.
Retrieved December 14, 2016, from
http://www.hughestrueman.com.au/pros-cons-hydraulic-fracturing/
Wihbey, J. (2015, May 27). Pros and cons of fracking: 5 key issues. Retrieved December 15,
2016, from
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-
issues/
Things that need to be done for final paper
Need more research on the key points to bring it up to minimum 6-8 pages for your content. Remember a minimum of one page per key points to get a good passing grade just depending on your research.
Your Opinion and Rationale: You did list or go on to discuss the arguments you would use to present to those who disagree with you but you need to go more into this.
