Humans have always looked to improve their quality of life since the dawn of time. Along the way, humans discovered the use of natural gas and oil production to be an immensely useful asset that can help fuel the everyday lives of almost every single person. We use natural gasses in our homes for electricity, heating, cooking and sometimes even for vehicles. However, how we obtain these natural resources has become an extremely controversial topic since the introduction of this method. Hydraulic fracturing, otherwise commonly known as just fracking, has become the most prominent method used around the world to obtain these natural resources since its introduction about sixty-five years ago or so.
This process consists of drilling down into the earth and firing a mixture of water alongside other solutions at an extremely high pressure at rocks. The substances in the mixture or otherwise known as the “proppants” help crack the rocks and keep them open while the desired natural resource is being extracted (California Department of Conservation). These rocks contain gas or oil which is released upon the impact of the high-pressure water stream. Fracking is important in terms of resource possession because these resources cannot be obtained unless the rocks are forced to crack by human methods. Although this is a widely popularized technique, it is also widely criticized.
As any other controversial topic, fracking is also known to have its supporters and critics due to its pros and cons. The most obvious benefit of this process is the natural resources themselves and in turn, all the benefits they provide. However, by taking a closer look, it can be seen that the pros are much deeper and more than just natural oils and gasses. Data suggest that although natural gas production has not risen since the 1990s, the fracking process has seen a 25% increase from 2007 to 2013 (Christensen, et al.). This fracking adoption boom also led to economic benefits that can be seen with the fact that the cost of natural gas has dropped around forty percent since then. It goes hand in hand with the supply and demand law. The increased availability of natural gas due to this process has decreased the price it costs. Secondly, due to the increased availability of this newer and more efficient energy source, the usage of coal for energy production saw a thirteen percent decrease in 8 years (Christensen, et al).
127 our experts are availableright now
The significance of the decreased use of coal is the well-known fact that it produces dangerous greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, which play a large role in global warming (Coal). Another advantage of fracking is the number of jobs it has and will create as time goes on. A study done by the U.S Chamber of Commerce’s 21st Century Energy Institute reported that not only has this industry created jobs where the natural resources, or shales, are present, but it has also created jobs in states that do not have them. The numbers in the study state that fracking has created 1.7 million jobs thus far and is projected to create another 1.8 million for a whopping total of 3.5 million by the year 2035 (Lydersen). Although all of these reasons are compelling enough to believe that fracking is beneficial, there are still drawbacks that make this industry less appealing to many people.
Just as there are benefits, there are also negatives that help make this an extremely polarizing topic. To begin with, the mere creation of a drilling site requires a vast amount of land to be cleared. This poses problems where the desired land is owned by someone else. Usually, the companies will buy the landowners off in one way or another, but the nuisance the companies create with their trucks and equipment may cause some people to reconsider their offers. Next, the side effects of the process itself are thought to have dangerous effects on the environment. Since a high-pressure water stream alone can’t do enough damage to crack the desired rocks, otherwise known as shales, the water stream is sent in with chemicals such as bactericides and anti-corrosives.
Although this combination serves well for the purpose at hand, the chemicals can’t be retracted in a manner that will completely remove them from the earth. What that means is, the bactericides and anti-corrosive chemicals remain in the earth and pose a threat to nearby water (Christensen, et al). Over time, the chemical buildup plays a massive role in pollution and damages the nearby ecosystems. One of the biggest factors that make this subject so polarizing is that the effects of the chemical buildup are very severe and can yield damage to tons of species that may not be able to be reversed.
Going along with the issues addressed above, the biological and environmental aspects of fracking are what most anti-fracking people use in their arguments and rightly so. As I stated earlier, the fracking process greatly interferes with the wellbeing of the environment. To begin, this process has numerous effects on water. To complete the process itself, immense amounts of water are required and therefore can deplete the water resources of small towns where the water supply is already a very small quantity. According to Green Peace, some states like Texas use 3.6 million gallons of water per fracture.
The effects of that much water usage on a state or city with low water supply are not hard to imagine (Fracking’s Environmental Impacts). Secondly, fracking has been related to being the cause of death for animals of species nearby the fracking sites. For example, a study shows that just one fracking site has an effect on up to thirty acres of forest. The animals that live in the forests will see their natural habitat torn down, alongside having their migration and reproduction patterns disturbed as well. Furthermore, there have even been some reported instances of animals dying due to fracking-related illnesses. Some farmers have reported their pets dying from drinking fracking wastewater (Fracking Threatens California Wildlife).
To add to what was stated above, fracking also has been linked to contaminated water in many states. This is due to the fact that methane is released as a byproduct of the process which leads to further damage. Take the instance of the small town of Dimock, Pennsylvania. A study done on that town showed that the rate of methane in their water was much higher than it would be if they lived near gas plants (Fracking’s Environmental Impacts). Although methane is not a health hazard when taken into the body, it is an explosive gas and can lead to very gruesome scenes if by chance the gas is lit. Also, just because methane is not deadly does not mean anyone should have to drink water that consists of it.
Due to how popular this topic has gotten in terms of support and opposition, it has warranted the use of politics for people to push their agenda for either pro-fracking or anti-fracking. As many people may have suspected, some of the biggest supporters are the gas and fracking giants who want their business to grow. Some of these business giants include the American Gas Association, Marcellus Shale Coalition, and the American Petroleum Institute. These organizations make alliances and deals with politicians that also agree with them, and their main goal is to make the laws and regulations bend in their favor and will, in turn, allow them to expand or retain their business and income for that matter (Grass).
However, there are also tons of organizations that are against it as well. Some of these groups include environmental agencies and those who support the economy in a way that is negatively affected by fracking. One of the more prominent anti-fracking groups is the Americans against Fracking group. They believe that this causes more harm than good by damaging economies, climates, ecosystems, and drinking water all across the USA (About the Coalition). Their main goal is to simply just get rid of fracking altogether and eventually implement other ways to obtain the energy we need to sustain our lifestyles.
These differences in desires more than often come down to the political ballots and can go either way depending on the area and the proposition. For example, in California, there have been numerous votes on fracking in the past ten years with some supporting fracking and some denying it. Just in 2015 the citizens of La Habra, California put a proposition on the ballot that would ban any incoming fracking deals; but was eventually defeated (Historical California). In 2014, Mendocino County successfully passed a proposition that would ban all fracking-related activities (Historical California). A lot of these initiatives and props are supported by groups such as the ones listed above.
