ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Hydrofracking

1678 Words7 Pages

Why Hydrofracking Shouldn’t Be Our Main Source Of Energy Hydrofracking wells are drilled at a depth between 6,000 and 10,000 feet! It is where all the deepest and weirdest looking fishes in the seas live. But if you look at it in other ways, will the planet be injured because of how deep the wells are drilled, causing the seismic activity to increase? Basically, hydrofracking is a technique in when large amounts of water, combined with smaller amounts of chemicals and sand, are pumped under high pressure into a drilled gas well. Later on, they suck back the water so that the pressure will be released, then the gas will leak out of the cracks of the stone wall and be absorbed back into the pipes. (Dong, n.d.) I believe that hydrofracking wouldn’t be a reliable source of energy for a carbon-free world because our environment will keep getting worse due to pollution, it’s also really costly to build the gas well for hydrofracking. Also, it adds danger to the people who works in hydrofracking fields. The world is changing now. The climate around the world is rising due to all the greenhouse gasses that have been produced by generating electricity. 35% of the energy we use now is petroleum, 20% natural gasses, and 18% with …show more content…

They think that less CO2 would be produced compared to coal, which is also a big energy source we rely on now. The thing is they might be right, but not all right. If you look at one coal burning site and one fracking site with only one fracking machine, then that would be true, a lot less CO2 would be produced. But, the amount of energy that comes out of the hydrofracking site is a lot lesser compared to the coal burning site. For a hydrofracking site to work, you will need more than 1 fracking machines to produce as much energy. Now, the amount of CO2 produced will be equal to the coal burning site, sometimes even more. (Pros Fracking,

Show More
Related
903 Words | 4 Pages

The evidence that this proposal would not be beneficial was shown in Biello’s article. Climatologists advise burning of fossil fuels will adversely affect climate change. The amount of greenhouse gases in the air will increase. With no control of temperature, the water level in oceans will rise higher and higher each day. With this in mind, people have been strictly against the pipeline.

Read More
1460 Words | 6 Pages

The Keystone Pipeline System has been a major source of crude oil import for the U.S. in recent years. According to The New York Times, the Keystone alone supplies about a half million barrels of oil per day, which is almost a quarter of the total amount that Canada sends; Canada is the largest exporter of crude oil to the United States, supplying over 2 million barrels every day (Kraus; Keystone 293). The Keystone XL is one of the extension projects to boost the output of the existing system by building a pipeline that stretches over a thousand mile from “Alberta, Canada to Steel City, Nebraska, [and it is estimated to supply] 830,000 barrels a day” by converging with delivery points at Cushing, Oklahoma and Texas, then finally reaching

Read More
385 Words | 2 Pages

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

Read More
116 Words | 1 Pages

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

Read More
573 Words | 3 Pages

Lennon says, “Within the first 20 years, methane escaping from within and around the wells, pipelines and compressor stations is 105 times more powerful a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide” (pg#). This is really good use of this strategy because this makes an appeal to logos. This make Lennon more credible because he is using very good shocking facts in his article. This makes the readers trust him and helps his audience side with his argument of how bad fracking is. This is so because this is how the gas is getting produced is from the dangerous fracking which doesn’t just release bad greenhouse gases but also fouls our wells and makes our water undrinkable.

Read More
225 Words | 1 Pages

In the second article "Fracking Threatens Everyone" it is stated "Fracking remains a dangerous practice that poses a threat even if it is done correctly and is carefully monitored" so it seems that the author wants people to stop Fracking because it generates dangers. It is stated "sources of drinking water can be ruined and all different types of pollution can happen in a second" which poses a great threat to many places. For example, the pollution can enter streams and rivers and kill whatever is in it, and harm even more wildlife. It says "This makes fracking a gamble for communities and individuals who may be tempted by the large amounts of money being offered to those who allow their land to be used for fracking" and the author

Read More
787 Words | 4 Pages

This is where they put a steel pipe into the ground at around 10,000 feet and turn it 90 degrees so that it is horizontal. Then they send an explosive missile that erupts along the horizontal part to puncture holes through the pipe. They later put a fluid that contains water, sand and other chemicals through the pipe which later goes through the pores of the pipe into the rock. It breaks the rock down and creates cracks leading to the natural gas leaking out through the pipe. There is an average of 5 - 8 million gallon of water used for one Fracking.

Read More
810 Words | 4 Pages

Fracking the Good and The Bad In the essay, “Hope It’s in Your Backyard,” by Neil deMause, he wrote about the positive and negative factors of fracking and its effect on the world. The ramifications of fracking could be devastating to the earth with regards to natural gas and oil. It is debated that fracking, in the United States, would stimulate economic growth, lower gas prices, create more jobs, and make our country independent for oil and natural gas. The effects of burning fossil fuels is negative to the earth’s climate and the cause of some pollution. Natural gas is cheaper, but its effect on our ecosystem may be devastating.

Read More
148 Words | 1 Pages

Some might ask why Hydrofracking is positive. Well there can be many reasons. People only hear the negative effects of fracking because when people want something changed they usually tend to leave the positive part out. New York has recently been head of a massive debate among the people and the energy companies. The technology used in hydrofracking is very advanced and has the potential to drastically reduce our reliance on foreign fuel imports.

Read More
721 Words | 3 Pages

By fracking for natural gas and shifting from coal to natural gas power generation plants, we could benefit economically, save our environment, and save millions of gallons of

Read More
1699 Words | 7 Pages

Fracking has actually been taking place since the 1940’s, but not until it was combined with horizontal drilling was it extremely useful (“Hydraulics” 71-75). In the past fifteen years the fracking business has skyrocketed. By 2015 thirty-five thousand wells are using fracking methods in order to extract the natural gases each year. Ninety percent of all gas production in the United States would be impossible without fracking (“Hydraulics” 71-75). More than ninety percent of natural gas wells in the U.S. rely on fracking (Howarth, Ingraffea, and Engelder).

Read More
340 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
679 Words | 3 Pages

Using natural gas from fracking is a better and safer alternative than using coal because natural gas does not emit as much carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. The graphs presented on natfuel.com shows that the amount of carbon dioxide

Read More
1201 Words | 5 Pages

In my person opinion prior to reading this article, hydropower had an angelic ring around it. I was only really aware of the positives in comparison to fossil fuels. I enjoyed having my knowledge broadened. I think that it was important for the researchers in both papers to give the full story behind hydropower, including the displacement of people and methane release because those issues are sometimes not even considered by governments in deciding where to put dams. I feel as though after reading this article, I am able to make a better judgment on whether or not hydropower is a good energy source in a region or not.

Read More
943 Words | 4 Pages

People complain about pollution from factories, cars, global warming, and the melting of polar ice caps, yet many people disregard the dangerous that come with fracking. Fracking is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, and/or boreholes to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. Fracking is causing an epidemic economically and environmentally. Fracking is continuously destroying the earth day by day. From the endless fracking today’s economy is depleting.

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Hydrofracking

Related Topics

Open Document