More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay about hydraulic fracturing
The effects of hydraulic fracturing
Arguments for and against hydraulic fracturing for natural gas
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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.
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.
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
Fracking comes with a heavy expense on the environment and surrounding communities. Along with fracking in areas comes the increase in water prices and the constant risk of contaminated water (Rumpler). The communities in the area that fracking occurs also suffers a decrease in property value costs. These factors affect the wallets of the residents and farmers in the surrounding area. The health and well-being of surrounding residents are being put at risk because of fracking as well.
In recent years in can be noted that civil disobedience is prominent in American culture. This can be portrayed in the recent events of the Keystone Pipeline activists. Many activists have blamed the government for their problems just as Thoreau did in his essay “Civil Disobedience”. There can be a parallel drawn between these two topics even though they have decades between them. In these times it is still logical to believe that civil disobedience is the right course of action.
In addition, there are more downsides to fracking than just water pollution, and that is the pollution of our environment. The condition of our environment is horrendous when fracking is conducted. To add on to that statement, fracking has caused natural gas leakage into the air, marred landscapes, and many more hazards to our environment. Fracking has already caused pollution to the air, and fracking companies have to remove trees, then that takes away more air from our environment. Trees are vital to Earth’s supply of oxygen, and these companies are just taking the air straight out of the lungs of the people.
"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
What The Frack, an anti-fracking video campaign showcasing an array of entertainers, including Lance Bass, Daryl Hannah, Hayden Panettiere, Marissa Tormei and Wilmer Valderrama, recently received a rebuttal from the common man. “Celebrities; You don’t know what the Frack you are talking about” was the Western Alliance’s response. This video features no celebrities, just folks who appear to work in the oil and gas industry touting fracking’s safety record and importance of providing low cost energy to homes all across the U.S specifically at a time when Americans need a break. They point out that fracking has been used for over six decades. The “frack and forth” is the direct result of environmental groups crying wolf about expanding energy technologies in states like Colorado,tSorry Hollywood, this is not a movie, it’s the
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, states that, “The EPA’s water quality study confirms what millions of Americans already know—that dirty oil and gas fracking contaminates drinking water” and that “the EPA chose to leave many critical questions unanswered” (Malewitz). It is critical that the EPA works with the general public to answer every question so that we can begin to work together to understand the complexity of this
Fracking: Should It Stop? In 2007, a home in Ohio received an unpleasant surprise when, after turning on the sink, an explosion ensued (Beaver 128). What caused this explosion?
But, aside from the benefits that the industry has brought, the oil boom, and the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing, has exposed many underlying issues. With the population rising, crime rates have soared; there are more burglaries, rapes and drug trafficking than the state has ever seen. But the issues don’t stop there: the controversial practice of fracking has come under fire as evidence points to fracking as the cause for both harmful air and water contamination. The effects of fracking have not only affected the people living in the North Dakota oil-towns, but also the animals, and the flora and fauna that have been gravely impacted as well. However, to completely eliminate fracking, at least in the short term, is not a reasonable possibility; therefore, it is imperative that short term solutions: such as greater regulation on fracking infrastructure, more police officers to curb crime and a movement towards more traditional oil drilling is imperative.
Shots fired, officer vehicles set ablaze, and groups of protesters pepper sprayed; all hell broke loose on the date of October 17, 2013 when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) showed up to stop anti-fracking protesters in New Brunswick, Canada. Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, has long been a controversial topic. Many argue that fracking allows us access to better and cleaner burning fossil fuels, while others argue that the process in which these gases are obtained are bad for the environment. On this specific day in New Brunswick, protesters were protesting in the belief that fracking would cause contamination to their drinking water supply. But in order to find the truth, it is important to dive a little deeper into
Thesis statement The benefits of natural gas hydraulic fracking do not justify the adverse effects it causes through continuous earthquakes, pollution of the water table, or potential health hazards to human populations. This subject is interesting to me because I work for a natural gas company. I have had many conversations with other employees regarding natural gas fracking, and most of them are biased to the views of the drilling companies which means they do not see any harm in it. There also used to be companies fracking for natural gas in Arkansas on the Fayetteville Shell. The number of small earthquakes did rise (3.0 or smaller), but there was nothing resulting in a large amount of devastation.
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:
