Fracking is a very complex and controversial topic. No matter how complicated it may be, fracking continues to be a common practice by many oil and gas companies around the United States and Canada. Many people have many different opinions about fracking, but the process is not what some claim it to be. Fracking promises a brighter future, but it harms exactly that. Through an analysis of a Facts on Files article, Shattered Ground, and an individual case file, fracking is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To understand it fully, a valid definition of fracking is required to serve as the basis for this paper. Fracking can be defined as the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations to allow oil and gases to flow out through the fissures and into the wellbores where they can be easily …show more content…
Two parties make up the fracking debate: the proponents and the critics. Very little of a middle ground is present in this conversation; the opinions appear to be very polarized with strong convictions. The advocates of fracking believe the procedure can relieve dependence on foreign oil, vitalize local economies, is safer than other methods of oil and gas extraction, and that it occurs so deep underground it is nearly impossible for it to affect groundwater or drinking water. In contrast, opponents argue that fracking can pollute their water, its runoff emissions are hazardous, the trucks needed to operate this procedure disturb the local ecosystem’s carbon levels, and that people have little say in these operations. Both sides provide legitimate arguments; however, the consequences of fracking are far more significant than the so-called benefits. Faulty linings of well pipes can leak out fracking fluid and flowback, which include radioactive properties, metals, chemical compounds, salts, and carcinogens. The leaking of these compounds can contaminate water supplies and cause serious health issues