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.
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
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.
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
Universally, fracking and the construction of pipelines consistently have a negative impact on
First of all, hydraulic fracking requires a massive amount of water. According to the EPA, 70 to 140 billion gallons of water, the same amount required to provide for 40 to 80 cities annually, is used to frack in the US each year. In Texas, ranchers, who are already suffering from drought conditions, worry as fracking companies continue to pump millions of gallons of water from the aquifer beneath their feet. These ranchers worry that as the drilling continues to drain the aquifer, there will soon be no water left for them to irrigate their fields and provide for their livestock. Ranchers shouldn’t be the only ones who are worried, as groundwater is connected; pumping water from one aquifer can drain that of another, and the over-pumping of water can drain water sources in a larger radius than just the pumping site.
One reason is that it is allowing the natural gas industry to boom, and natural gas is much cleaner than other fossil fuels. Natural gas produces only two thirds the amount of emissions of crude oil and only half as many emissions as coal. This has given natural gas the label of a transition fuel, which could be used by countries to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Transitioning more to natural gas can help lessen the effects of climate change, due to the fact that it is cleaner than other fossil fuels. Another benefit of fracking is that it allows stores of oil and natural gas to be harvested that previously seemed out of reach.
Fracking is not a new think it was invent seventy years ago in 1947(“ Thanks To Fracking, Earthquake Hazards In Parts Of Oklahoma Now Comparable To”).For most of those years it has been loosely regulated because people were further worried about what was happening with the coal industry. The fracking fluid starts in a tank then it moves through a pipe into a sand truck. Then the mixture is moved into the blending truck.
According to Climatecentral.org, “fracking for natural gas used to produce electricity may make Texas more drought resistant as the state shifts from coal power generation to natural gas power generation” (Magill). This could be a major breakthrough for Texas because not only would we produce electricity and save our environment, but we would also save millions of gallons of water. The amount of water we could save by shifting from coal to natural gas plants “is up to 50 times the amount of water lost in fracking to extract the natural gas from underground shale formations. According to the article, “The study’s authors estimate that for every gallon of water used to frack for natural gas, Texas saved 33 gallons of water by using that gas for electricity generation rather than producing the same amount of power with coal” (Magill).
Fracking produces greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide. These trapping gases will only make the Earth hotter and melt the polar ice caps quicker. This will bring about unbearable irreversible effects to our states, country, and Earth.
As technology grows with society, scientist find alternatives to everyday things such as oil and gas. Hydraulic Fracturing being a top producer of oil and natural gases by drilling into the ground and pumping fluids, to release resources. Fracking is one of the main source of heat and fuel but how safe is it. Can we expect to truly continue to rely on oil and natural gases? I feel that fracking isn 't safe because not only do men die from being on oil drills but fracking leads to environmental hazards and shows society isn 't has far into the future as everyone thinks.
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.
Therefore, fracking will not continue because of its bad reputation. Fracking companies should also list the chemicals used in fracking fluids so that the contamination in water can be reversed. Linda Dong from dangersoffracking.com clearly explains that the underground water that is contaminated is permanent damage. Without knowing the chemicals in fracking fluids, better alternatives to harmful chemicals cannot be found. However, the fracking fluid that is left underground damages the environment that we live in.
1. Introduction 1.1 What is hydraulic fracturing? Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is the process of drilling down into the earth’s surface, followed by a high-pressure water mixture, which is directed at the rocks to release the gas and oil that is inside of them. Furthermore water, sand, chemicals and other substances are injected into the rock at a high pressure, in order to allow the gas in the rock to flow out and up to the top of the fracking wells.
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:
