I acknowledge that our nation is one of the biggest users of natural resource and our overreliance on the natural gas cannot be overemphasized. I appreciated the claims made by proponents of fracking. They have argued that fracking creates job for people who deserve to secure their livelihoods. It has expanded the opportunities we have for earning more money. Besides these benefits, I feel that fracking has too many adverse effects on the environment and communities that lives within the vicinity of fracking sites. I am very shocked by how our society embraces technology without thinking about its unintended impacts on our environment. We rarely focus on better and sustainable alternatives, particularly when developing energy. I am disappointed
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
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
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
Universally, fracking and the construction of pipelines consistently have a negative impact on
"Hydraulic fracturing, the process of extracting oil or gas by forcing fluids into the ground to fracture shale rocks, at the Eagle Ford Shale Play has produced more oil and natural gas but at the cost of environmental hazards and affect human health. The part of the process that creates the environmental hazards is the fracking fluids that are forced into the ground. For each fracking job, these fluids are comprised of 1 to 8 million gallons of water and 40,000 gallons of chemicals. Some of the 600 chemical carcinogens and toxins in the fracking fluids are lead, radium, uranium, mercury, methanol, hydrochloric acid, ethylene glycol, and formaldehyde. Once the fracking job is done, about 50 to 70 percent of fracking liquids are left in open
Hydraulic fracking has the capabilities to change the United States economy and improve the lives of many people. Fracking produces large amounts of natural gas that can be used as fuel, but because fracking is such a new process, researchers and environmentalists do not yet fully understand the negative effects it can have on our environment over time. Fracking has been linked to the contamination of groundwater and this contamination is a danger to people who live near fracking sites. The process of hydraulic fracking requires the use of hundreds of potentially dangerous chemicals which need to be regulated to keep our environment safe and clean. Hydraulic fracking should be allowed in the United States because it provides a useful resource,
1. Even though fracking reduces carbon emissions, it is still harmful to the environment. For example: water pollution/contamination. There can be accidental seeping of the chemicals (possibly carcinogenic) and can contaminate groundwater around the site due to bad practice (this imposes harm to both the ecosystem and people 's health).
Proposition P================ Propostion P was advanced by an advocacy group known as the Santa Barbara Water Guardians, mainly to prohibit the usage of hydraulic fracturing (i.e fracking) within Santa Barbara, threatening its water supply. As such, Proposition P is absolutely essential, not only to ensuring the health of residents in Santa Barbara, but to ensuring long term social, economic, and environmental stability. Where opponents to Proposition P may tend to make arguments which solely favor the number of jobs in the community, or which perhaps presume the importance of the oil industry in Santa Barbara, over other concerns in the community, these other concerns need to be considered more fully in order to illustrate why support of Proposition P is absolutely essential.================
In the U.S. hydraulic fracking has been a main source of energy during today’s times, it 's cheap effectiveness makes us think this . People should know how hydraulic fracturing is not as clean and amazing as we think it is. Hydraulic fracking cannot be a sustainable option for America. There are too many faults for it to be upheld in the long run and we cannot depend on it as our main resource of energy forever.
Fracking Protest and the Fight for Aboriginal Rights, David Shwartz and Mark Gollom of CBC News begin by providing the information that it is Canada’s “duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal people when the development is on their traditional land.” Non-aboriginal people in New Brunswick also opposed fracking in the area. Because of this, the county’s council “voted nearly unanimously for a moratorium on shale gas exploitation” (Shwartz & Gollom para.8). Stephen Augustine, principal of Unama’ki College, explained how the rights to lands or resources of the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet people were never surrendered in treaties, but that the treaties were of “peace and friendship,” which the Canadian government has acknowledged. Bill Gallagher, the author of Resource Rulers: Fortune and Folly on Canada’s Road to Resources who spent the first third of his life in New Brunswick, believed this protest was a part of a continuum; that there are issues the government must go back to address, and a cooling-off period is needed.
Economically, the fight for fracking is clear .One of the main reasons people support hydraulic fracking are the financial benefits. Senator Marco Rubio in his energy policy speech stated that the hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of natural gas and oil underneath
Fracking has helped the United States and other fracking nations reduce CO2 emissions since natural gas is one of the cleanest energy sources.
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.
David Glazer AP Language and Composition Johnson 2/3/16 Analyzing “A Field Philosopher’s Guide To Fracking” In his book A Field Philosopher’s Guide to Fracking, Adam Briggle documents his journey to fight fracking in the small town of Denton, Texas. Recently hired as a professor of philosophy at the University of North Texas, Briggle moves to Denton never having heard of fracking before. Fracking is a type of drilling that increases oil production and effectiveness but, as Briggle would learn, has severe consequences on the community.
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: