The paper defines fracking, describes its merits and demerits. Besides, it discusses effects of fracking on the environment. It concludes that fracking should be stopped and offers ways of stopping fracking. Fracking is a concept that denotes a method of drilling into the ground then directing a high-pressure mixture of water at the rock as well as rock formations to produce gas and oil (Lane, 2013). The mixture consists of chemicals, sand, as well as water, which is directed at a rock at some high pressure to eject gas or oil to the earth's surface. A fracking procedure can be executed vertically or through drilling a horizontal channel to rock beneath. Other horizontal channels or pathways are created to produce gas (Lane, 2013). Fracking as a process started in the 1940s when some petroleum engineers pursued other mechanisms to increase productions of a well. Fracking turned out an effective method because there are approximately five hundred thousand operating natural gas wells in America.
Extraction of Shale Gas
Source (Lane, 2013)
Advantages of Fracking
Fracking provides access to another or alternative fuel source. The supply of gas or oil can be considered negative aspect currently, but a time comes when such resources can be scarce or limited. Whatever scarcity the globe can experience in gas or oil can be addressed by fracking. Studies or investigations on the consequences of fracking can result in safer as well as innovative ways of extracting oil or natural gas (Miller & Spoolman, 2015). Employing traditional oil extraction as well as fracturing is the best way to address the problem of fuel shortages. Since fracking can be executed in local authorities, it can lower a nation’s reliance on foreign natural gas. Because the demand for fuel is probably to increase with the growth of population, it pays to rely on another option, which is domestic in mind.
Fracking can reduce or lower surface toxicity. The process utilizes large volumes of chemicals, sand, as well as water, which are blasted or directed at an underground rock to fracture them open. The injection of chemicals deep underground causes lower or no pollution, contrary to when these chemicals are flown on the earth’s surface or into the atmosphere (Miller & Spoolman, 2015). These chemicals are less probably to contaminate water bodies and air, ensuring safety and healthy environment to people. Chemicals directed underground implies safe air quality. The toxins or contaminants that would be released into the environment by no chance would pose a danger. Additionally, the use of natural gas to produce electricity implies less reliance on nuclear or coal power plants. This leads to reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, which results in lower air pollution.
Fracking also has the possibility of lowering the cost of energy. The local production of natural gas or oil provides fuel to industries at lower cost, which makes them competitive. For that reason, the energy situation within America is transformed. This also leads to lower taxes as the exportation of oil is lowered, which cuts down exportation expenses.
Fracking means more employment opportunities. A brief literature review on gas as well as oil sector in the United States indicates that over 1.2 million persons were employed in 2012 in the sector and is projected to increase absorbing more job seekers. The figures are projected to double or even triple because restrictions on fracking presently are being lifted. Therefore, fracking as a process increases the supply of fuel by approximately 65 percent and provides employment opportunities (Yatish, 2014). Additionally, fracking has positively impacted the economy because it is responsible for approximately 385 billion dollars directly in the economic activity (Yatish, 2014).
Demerits of Fracking and its Effects on the Environment
Fracking poses numerous challenges to the environment and the economy. For example, the process needs large amounts of scarce water. About 1-8 million water gallons would be needed for each fracturing activity to complete. This is a shocking news because most parts of the globe are experiencing scarcity of water, particularly if the process is offered more attention than persons requiring water to satisfy their basic needs. Reviewed literature indicates that in 2014, approximately 35 million freshwater gallons were exploited from close aquifers within Michigan for use in a frack well (Yatish, 2014). This implies that sources of fresh water would be exhausted, and streams or rivers would soon dry up.
Fracking can cause water contamination. The process of fracking apart from causing water shortage, it also causes pollution of water bodies. Individuals supporting the process can claim that no proof exists for water pollution due to fracking, such an argument is possible because regions suspected for pollution were not properly investigated. However, NRDC offered examples of instances of contamination of water due to fracking, which prompted the institution to support the government on regulating pollution of water.
Fracking process can cause earthquakes. There are instances earthquakes have been associated with fracking process within America and other parts of the globe, for example, Blackpool. Reviewed literature demonstrates that Cuadrilla Resources Company confirmed that seismic events, which were experienced in 2011 within Blackpool, could have resulted from a fracking process. The Hall-one well of Caudrilla Preese triggered some seismic events, which on a Ritcher scale measured 2.3 as well as 1.5 (Yatish, 2014).
Hazardous chemicals are used in the fracking process. The fluid utilized in the process of fracking involves the addition of polymeric lubricant, stabilizer, surfactant, as well as a biocide. Nonetheless, since firms are not needed to conceal any information regarding chemicals used in fracking, these companies have the liberty of altering ingredients. It is true since these firms are let off the Act of Safe Drinking Water.
Environmentalists maintain that some of these chemicals are carcinogenic substances and can escape to nearby areas and underground water where fracking is taking place. Approximately 600 substances considered hazardous are employed as a fluid in fracking. Methane gas can leach during fracking to contaminate or pollute underground water. Concentrations of methane are approximately seventeen times higher in the water around fracking sites in comparison to normal wells (Hauter, 2016). The waste materials or fluid if left in open or bare holes can evaporate to produce dangerous, volatile organic substances into the environment, polluting the air, causing acid rain, as well as the ground ozone layer.
Fracking can increase cases of droughts. Fracking uses a large volume of water in comparison to other methods used to extract oil or natural gas from underground. For that reason, increased cases of droughts have been experienced in regions where a fracking process is taking place. There are concerns from citizens that most parts of America as well as other parts of the globe experience natural drought and international companies are still given the approval to use a large volume of water to extract natural gas or oil. Water that is scarce, and that would otherwise be used for irrigation or meeting basic needs of man such as drinking are depleted by fracking.
Fracking causes noise pollution. Apart from the increase of water contamination, there also increase in noise pollution in regions fracking is taking place. The process of fracking is loud and can last for many years. There can be untold suffering for individuals residing in areas where fracking is occurring. Noise pollution can result from heavy vehicles and machinery operating in fracking site. Another problem can be light pollution. Because the process of fracking goes on day and night, floodlights installed affect individuals residing near fracking sites.
Another adverse consequence of fracking is global warming. Even though natural gas never releases excess carbon dioxide in comparison to amounts released by combusting oil or coal, it still produces some amounts of carbon dioxide. Rather than attempting to explore novel sources of alternative energy that are clean and without environmental problems people depend on natural gas, which adds greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the environment. The trend, in the end, can still result in significant problematic consequences on human health and environment (Hyndman & Hyndman, 2016).
Another negative consequence of fracking can be that it causes no further advancement. Because people depend on natural gas, particularly due to its cheap cost, due to fracking that is effective in exploiting, even the hardest to access deposits, there no longer drive to explore alternative sources of energy. Occasions when people and countries were concerned about not driving cars because of fuel shortages, alternatives such as solar powered vehicles were pursued. The challenge with a fracking process is that the drive for alternative sources of energy, for example, wind, and sun are gone with the introduction of fracking. Rather, there is a possibility of releasing harmful substances into the environment, which have the potential of causing climate change as well as global warming. Ideally, the process of fracking only distract governments as well as energy companies from exploring to exploit renewable energy sources and promoting continued dependence on coal or fossil sources of fuels.
Based on the merits and demerits of fracking, the process should be stopped. It is evident that the process of fracking eventually produces about three hundred thousand barrels of gas daily, although the production of these barrels occurs at the expense of many safety, environmental, as well as health threats or hazards. If other options such as wind and solar can be used as energy, there is no need to pollute the environment through fracking.
The process of fracking can be stopped through many strategies. For example, lobbying to secure public support to halt the gas and oil firms from fracking is an option to stop the process. Besides, local zoning regulations can be employed to ban international companies, including operations of gas or oil firms in municipal borders. Protection of public lands can also be used to stop fracking. Non-governmental institutions and government can challenge and ban fracking on national forests, wildlife refuges, public lands, as well as other special regions to safeguard pristine landscape or endangered species. In summary, having effective anti-fracking activists, celebrity opposition, public comments against fracking, as well as a receptive administration can help in stopping fracking.
References
Hauter, W. (2016). Frackopoly: The battle for the future of energy and the environment. New York: The New Press.
Hyndman, D. W., & Hyndman, D. W. (2016). Natural hazards and disasters. Boston, Ma: Cengage Learning.
Lane, C. A. (2013). On fracking. [Victoria, British Columbia]: Rocky Mountain Books.
Miller, G. T., & Spoolman, S. (2015). Sustaining the Earth. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Yatish, S. (2014). Water for Energy and Fuel Production. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
